why does the 1911 have an external hammer?

[roscoe]

I was thinking about the issue of carry condition and how many people are uncomfortable with cocked-and-locked (including me). Many here have argued that it is not safe to carry a 1911 with the hammer down, or to lower the hammer on a loaded chamber, so why is the hammer external? And why the serrations if you are not supposed to lower it or cock it manually? Wouldn't it be better to have something internal that wouldn't snag on the pocket of your trench coat (a la Bogart)?

Or am I just being difficult?

 

[psyopspec]

why is the hammer external? And why the serrations if you are not supposed to lower it or cock it manually?

I'm sure there's many answers to your questions, but here's the best I can contribute. About a year ago I recall reading a thread on a firearms forum by a guy who's grandpa served in WWII. His grandad was a southpaw and carried the 1911 on half-cock. The manual safety was difficult to disengage with his left hand, but the half-cock served as a safety that was easier to take off by fully cocking the hammer.

Wouldn't it be better to have something internal

At that point in firearms design I don't believe there were any internal hammers/strikers on auto pistols. I could be wrong though, and I can't wait to see what others can come up with in regards to the serrations and external hammer.

 

[deputy tom]

roscoe,1911's are Service pistols,not pocket pistols.Bogie would carry a Colt .32 or .380 in his trench coat pocket,not a 1911.tom.

 

[Pylon]

My thinking is that they have the exposed hammer because its tradition and it makes the 1911 *look* like a 1911. In fact, a lot of the appeal of the 1911 is based on tradition, not to say its not a good gun, but i'm sure a lot of people here like the 1911 for more the just pure function.

I'm the same way with revolvers. I use it for a backup weapon and there is no reason why i should have a hammer on it, in fact it might even get in the way. I like the look of the hammer, however.

Now the part where they put serrations on the hammers is beyong my imagination. Seeing that your not technically suppose to ever touch the hammer for any reason, i'm at a lost for possible solutions to that one.

 

[Parker Dean]

The 1911 has an external hammer so that a misfire can be hit again. I believe this was an Army requirement, and they were worried about ammunition waste far more than we do now.

 

[1966]

I have seen people hit a decocker and the round go off..

 

[c_yeager]

At that point in firearms design I don't believe there were any internal hammers/strikers on auto pistols. I could be wrong though, and I can't wait to see what others can come up with in regards to the serrations and external hammer.

MANY of the JMB designs before the 1911 were in fact hammerless. IIRC JMB actually invented the stryker system. Looking at earlier efforts it appears that he even had a penchant for hamerless guns.

I suspect that the reason that the 1911 has an external hammer and an obvious spur is because that is what the army wanted. The US military didnt train it's personell to carry cocked-and-locked so perhaps they had a use for the spur.

 

[Croyance]

IIRC the .32 ACP 1908 was hammerless.

 

[Ash]

An exposed hammer is also the best loaded chamber indicator you can have. But, you also have to consider that folks are far more afraid of lowering a hammer on a loaded chamber today than ever in the past. Of course, the 1911 is not a design, in original form, that you would want to carry hammer down on a loaded chamber, but none-the-less it provides plenty of advantages with no real disadvantage. It gives second strike possibilities which cannot be done with strikers (ask a Glock owner). You also have no need to ever dry-fire a 1911.

In the end,though, there is no real reason not to have a hammer.

Ash

 

[Shootcraps]

You also have no need to ever dry-fire a 1911.

Huh??

 

[Old Fuff]

First of all, NEVER CARRY A 1911 STYLE PISTOL WITH THE CHAMBER LOADED AND THE HAMMER AT HALF-COCK! If the hammer is struck a solid blow the pistol might fire. If the hammer is carried all of the way down it is much safer, but not as safe as it would be if carried cocked & locked.

In Browning's day (late 19th and early 20th centeries) military sidearms were carried in full-flap holsters - either with the magazine loaded and chamber empty, or with a loaded magazine and chamber with the hammer fully lowered. In fact, Browning/Colt service pistols preceeding the model 1911 had neither a manual or grip safety. Both features were added because the Army demanded them. (Colt took the position that the customer - especially a big one - is always right).

The problem with Colt's hammerless Pocket Models what that once the slide was cycled and the chamber loaded there was no way to lower the hammer. This was something Uncle Sam's troopers wouldn't buy.

 

[stans]

The military requirement for the 1911 was an external hammer. This allowed the soldier to manually cock the hammer in the event of a misfire. The military did not allow for carry with a loaded chamber. The soldier was to make sure the magazine was out, chamber empty, lower the slide on the empty chamber and then lower the hammer, then insert a loaded magazine. When the pistol needed to be put into action, the soldier was to draw from the holster and manually cycle the slide to chamber the first round.

Half cock is not a safe position, especially with many of today's 1911's using a hammer with just a shelf for the half cock position. The self will allow the hammer to fall if the trigger is pulled. The half cock is a safety designed to keep the 1911 from going into full auto fire should the sear fail to hold the hammer at full cock.

 

[Onmilo]

By Military request, the 1911 was manufactured with an external hammer.
John Browning could have made the pistol with an internal hammer if he wanted to but chose to make the gun the way the large market customer wanted it.
In addition to being a mechanical genius, the guy was an excellent marketing agent too.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Quote:
------------------------------
The military did not allow for carry with a loaded chamber.
-------------------------------

For training purposes, that's correct. The manual however specifies that if the weapon is to be carried loaded in combat, it be carried cocked-and-locked.

 

[BluesBear]

At that point in firearms design I don't believe there were any internal hammers/strikers on auto pistols.

As a matter of fact up until then MOST automatic pistols did NOT have an exposed hammer.

I believe that throughout history there have been very few external hammer pistols compared to internal hammer/striker fired pistols.

 

[psyopspec]

I believe that throughout history there have been very few external hammer pistols compared to internal hammer/striker fired pistols.

Learn somethin' new everyday.

For those that were voicing concern over the half-cock carry, I'd like to point out that I've never carried a 1911 this way, nor do I advocate such action. I was only relaying a unique use that a soldier used a long time ago to make bringing the pistol into action much easier. For all I know it may not even have happend (source being the 'net and all).

 

[c_yeager]

I am glad this thread was brought up, since I have pondered the question myself. What i would like to see is someone make a nice bobbed hammer for the 1911, or even a shroud like they had for the older snubbies. I really see no need for the spur this day in age* and all it really provides is something to jab you in the side and catch on your clothes.



*my personal feeling is that if one has a misfire the solution is to rack the slide and try again with a fresh cartridge. I am not going to waste time trying to fire a round that has already failed once. And it doesnt take much longer to rack the slide than it does to recock with the thumb.

 

[wildehond]

I have seen fewer light primer strikes with handguns with hammers than with handguns that strike the primer with a striker setup.

It is just something that I have noticed. I am not saying that one is better than the other.

wildehond.

 

[Ash]

You need never dry fire a 1911 because you can lower the hammer.

Ash

 

[Fly320s]

Ash:

An exposed hammer is also the best loaded chamber indicator you can have.

How does that work?

 

[Bill Z]

You need never dry fire a 1911 because you can lower the hammer.

Actually, from a couple of standpoints dry firing is safe and beneficial, whether it is a srtiker fired pistol or a pistol with a hammer.
1. Dry firing gets you used to the trigger and the action you take, it's part of many training programs and reccomended by most instructors.

2. From a safety standpoint at a match or at the range, it is the best indicator that the chamber is empty, AFTER all of the other precautions have taken place, i.e.. remove magazine, verify empty chamber, close slide, point down range, dry fire, holster. (Some modification does have to be made for pistols with magazine locks, but it's basically the same.
In either case, it doesn't hurt the 1911 to be dry fired.

Now, I'm not sure why the 1911 was designed with an external hammer, but I had always understood that it was one of the military's requirements to have a second strike capability on the round. It's still a fairly common design in today's firearms though.

 

[DrDremel]

The benefit of an exposed hammer is that it can be re-cocked in the event of a misfire. It is no less safe than any other type of firearm.

 

[Ash]

If you abide by the whole "do not lower the hammer on a live round" then a hammer back means theres' one in the pipe. If the hammer is back and the slide is back, then the chamber is empty. If the hammer is foreward, then the chamber is empty cause you didn't load it. It's not that hard, fellas.

And, you NEED not dry fire. I did not say you couldn't dry fire. I have absolultely nothing wrong with dry firing assuming the design can cope with it. With a striker-fired pistol, you MUST dry fire. :banghead:

Am I speaking Greek or something?

Ash

 

[Bill Z]

What if you, or someone else, didn't abide? Hammer back should never me misconstrued as a loaded chamber indicator.

I do se the suttle difference in what you are saying as to striker vs. hammer, but it's not a good practice to be in. However, based on that, why would you even have to dry fire the striker. If one were to pick up the pistol, they would open the slide to check for an empty chamber, not pull the trigger, right?

 

[saddlebum]

i carry my kimber hammer down on a loaded chamber every day. but ,it has the sfs system installed. sb