Why not a 1911 with no thumb safety?

[Vern Humphrey]

However the great JMB apparently originally intended that to be one way of making the pistol safer to at least carry temporarily prior to the addition of the thumb-safety.

Browning was a businessman, and engineer and a gunsmith. He was not a soldier or lawman. The Army, which had a lot of experience using handguns in combat, saw things differently -- and rightly so.

 

[1911Tuner]

A 1911 in Condition One is not as safe as any loaded gun can be because loaded guns are frequently dropped and the 1911 is not drop safe.

I put that to the test a few times. The results were enlightening.

Dropped straight onto the muzzle from a height of 8 feet onto concrete lit a primed case. On a small divergence from 90 degrees...it didn't. Nor did it fire from 10 feet. It's pretty got to be dead straight. I didn't run any tests higher than 10 feet.

And dropped straight onto the ground from 10 feet didn't fire one.

Let's go back to the concrete and imagine what would happen if a live round fired at 90 degrees to the bore axis.

The gun would move upward in recoil about a 10th inch...and when the bullet struck the concrete, it would stop...just like it does if it was fired onto concrete from a distance. The only thing it wouldn't do is pancake because it's in the barrel. About the only danger would be from concrete particles accelerating away from ground zero at a low angle...and even if the bullet escaped the barrel, there wouldn't likely be enough velocity left to present much of a danger.

In other words...the danger from muzzle-down drop fire is very much overblown. If there had been a history of grave injuries from dropped 1911s, we'd have documentation of that...but it's not there.

I'd be much more concerned over the pistol striking the ground and firing muzzle up...and the 1911's grip safety has that covered.

We do, however have a lot of documentation of the phenomenon called "Glock Leg" to draw on. It happens so frequently that whenever we hear of a ND resulting in a leg shot...we automatically think "Glock"...or at least we do if we're honest with ourselves.

As Joe Kenda noted:

"Once is a coincidence. Twice is a little too much to be coincidence. Three times, and it becomes evidence."

 

[Vern Humphrey]

The square-on-the-muzzle "test" is really no test at all, since it doesn't duplicate any reasonably likely event. And I'll point out that the Ruger SR1911 beats that test with a titanium firing pin. You can also easily beat it with a stronger than normal firing pin return spring.

 

[ATLDave]

1911Tuner, all that you say above makes sense, but I've often wondered about the risks of a muzzle-down drop onto a floor that is not the ground floor. Any thoughts about those in particular?

 

[Nom de Forum]

Browning was a businessman, and engineer and a gunsmith. He was not a soldier or lawman. The Army, which had a lot of experience using handguns in combat, saw things differently -- and rightly so.

Agreed, but if there had been not need to be concerned with men on horseback and the pistol was designed primarily for infantry, it is entirely possible it would be expected to be decocked by lowering the hammer prior to holstering. Regardless of that more M1911 and M1911A1 have spent time being carried by the U.S. Military with the chamber empty and the hammer down then in any other condition. Seems the Military did not think carrying cocked and locked was a particularly safe S.O.P. regardless of how mechanically safe it is.

 

[Nom de Forum]

And yet NDs from drops have been occurring even if infrequently since adoption of the M1911.

Before there was "Glock Leg" there was "(fill in the name of a pistol) Leg". Do you really think more people have shot themselves with Glocks than 1911s? I really doubt that is true. You know no matter when a discussion drifts into how safe the 1911 is somebody always attempts to reinforce that argument with comments about "Glock Leg" as if nobody was shooting themselves or other people by NDs before the Glock showed up to the party.

 

[1911Tuner]

The square-on-the-muzzle "test" is really no test at all, since it doesn't duplicate any reasonably likely event.

This!

In over 50 years that I've spent dancin' with Johnny's toy, I've never known anybody who dropped one and had it fire. I've dropped a couple of'em my ownself...and never had one fire.

99% of the time, it's under carefully controlled conditions that are pretty much rigged to make the gun fail the drop test, and when it (finally) fails...they scream about how dangerous it is to carry a 1911 with a hot chamber.

Glock Leg, on the other hand...

but I've often wondered about the risks of a muzzle-down drop onto a floor that is not the ground floor. Any thoughts about those in particular?

All I can tell ya is that I drop-tested one from 8 feet...with a primed case...onto a carpeted floor with plywood under it and didn't get it to fire. I haven't tried a bare wood floor.

 

[ATLDave]

I guess I'm thinking about commercial-type construction, where there's a pretty rigid floor, yet (perhaps?) not enough mass to prevent a bullet from punching down into a floor below.

 

[CoalTrain49]

Yes the M1911 was designed for usage by cavalry (mounted cavalry is a redundant term not used to differentiate dismounted cavalry used as infantry, and mounted infantry are not cavalry they are dragoons )

Of course, I see your point. Maybe a better term would be cavalry when mounted. Everyone knows they didn't need safeties on their 1911's when they were not mounted, which would be most of the time.

 

[Nom de Forum]

This!

In over 50 years that I've spent dancin' with Johnny's toy, I've never known anybody who dropped one and had it fire. I've dropped a couple of'em my ownself...and never had one fire.

99% of the time, it's under carefully controlled conditions that are pretty much rigged to make the gun fail the drop test, and when it (finally) fails...they scream about how dangerous it is to carry a 1911 with a hot chamber.

Glock Leg, on the other hand...

All I can tell ya is that I drop-tested one from 8 feet...with a primed case...onto a carpeted floor with plywood under it and didn't get it to fire. I haven't tried a bare wood floor.

I don't doubt the truth of your experience. Something to consider is that firing pin safeties were invented long before fear of lawsuits became a consideration for gun makers. There must be a reason why firing pin safeties had been around for decades before the Glock and Series 80. In the last 50 years have you ever been present when someone shot themselves or someone else while holstering a Glock or any other pistol?

 

[1911Tuner]

In the last 50 years have you ever been present when someone shot themselves or someone else while holstering a Glock or any other pistol?

I have two friends who shot themselves with Glocks...both while reholstering. One got lucky. His was little more than a powder burn. The other one...not so much. He got to know the med surg folks at Forsyth Memorial pretty well.

 

[Nom de Forum]

I have two friends who shot themselves with Glocks...both while reholstering. One got lucky. His was little more than a powder burn. The other one...not so much. He got to know the med surg folks at Forsyth Memorial pretty well.

Why do you think this happened to your two friends and were you present when it happened?

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Agreed, but if there had been not need to be concerned with men on horseback and the pistol was designed primarily for infantry, it is entirely possible it would be expected to be decocked by lowering the hammer prior to holstering. Regardless of that more M1911 and M1911A1 have spent time being carried by the U.S. Military with the chamber empty and the hammer down then in any other condition. Seems the Military did not think carrying cocked and locked was a particularly safe S.O.P. regardless of how mechanically safe it is.

The military can be anal retentive about safety -- and for good reason. When you have hundreds of thousands of 19-year olds with loaded weapons, you have to take extra precautions.

 

[1911Tuner]

Why do you think this happened to your two friends

Because they called me and told me about it.

One said:

"I guess you were right."

It was back in the 80s, when the Glocks first showed up. I met him at the range one day, and saw my first one up close. I told him then that trigger was gonna be a problem, and that he should be extra careful when he slipped it in a holster. He shot himself a week later.

Fast-forward 2-3 years, and the other one bought a Glock. I reminded him of Big John's little episode...and he nodded and said not to worry. He had a handle on it. A month later, the phone rang.

"Guess what."

He was the one who got off easy.

No, I wasn't there, but I don't have any reason to suspect they'd lie.

 

[Monac]

Thanks for the catch. I was referring to the Roth-Steyr 1907 which is the first semiautomatic pistol adopted by a major European army (Austria). Sorry Mauser C96 and Luger fans if that comes as bad news. Other than the safer design it is an inferior weapon in comparison to a M1911. This pistol predates the Glock's type of trigger cocking system by 80 years.

Where are you getting this information about the Steyr Hahn firing when the thumb safety is disengaged? I suspect this was not a problem with new pistols in 1911/1912. It is doubtful this pistol would have been adopted by the Austrian Army if this was a problem. I have a reprint of a manual that does not mention any problems with firing occurring when the safety is disengaged.

I read about it in an article back in the 1980's (probably) by Robert T. Shimek, who did a Classic Gun Test Report on the Steyr-Hahn 1912 for Guns & Ammo magazine. He found that the location of the manual safety catch was such that the thumb of his right hand tended to nudge it upwards, until it was just barely engaged. When that happened, he pulled the trigger and nothing happened. He noticed that the safety catch had moved up, pushed it down - and the gun fired instantly. I think others have had this happen with a Steyr-Hahn, but I can't point to any other specific cases.

It is more a case of ergonomic and mechanical design than tolerance stacking, I think.

I had exactly the same thing happen with a Norinco copy of a Russian Margolin 22 target pistol. It had a safety catch at the same location as the Steyr-Hahn.

 

[Nom de Forum]

Because they called me and told me about it.

One said:

"I guess you were right."

It was back in the 80s, when the Glocks first showed up. I met him at the range one day, and saw my first one up close. I told him then that trigger was gonna be a problem, and that he should be extra careful when he slipped it in a holster. He shot himself a week later.

Fast-forward 2-3 years, and the other one bought a Glock. I reminded him of Big John's little episode...and he nodded and said not to worry. He had a handle on it. A month later, the phone rang.

"Guess what."

He was the one who got off easy.

No, I wasn't there, but I don't have any reason to suspect they'd lie.

Sorry I was not clear. How do you think your friends caused this to happen. I was not doubting the honesty of your friends. Interesting that this happened in the first decade of Glock use when it was a very different type of pistol from what was typical. If I recall correctly most of the NDs LEOs had occurred in the first decade of use and have been on the decline. I suspect when the 1911 was adopted a similar rate of NDs occurred but of course such things would not be documented as well as since the Glock came about. So just what did your friends do that caused them to shoot themselves?

 

[Drail]

I am going to guess it was loss of finger control and not a design problem.

 

[Nom de Forum]

I about it in an article back in the 1980's (probably) by Robert T. Shimek, who did a Classic Gun Test Report on the Steyr-Hahn 1912 for Guns & Ammo magazine. He found that the location of the manual safety catch was such that the thumb of his right hand tended to nudge it upwards, until it was just barely engaged. When that happened, he pulled the trigger and nothing happened. He noticed that the safety catch had moved up, pushed it down - and the gun fired instantly. I think others have had this happen with a Steyr-Hahn, but I can't point to any other specific cases.

It is more a case of ergonomic and mechanical design than tolerance stacking, I think.

I had exactly the same thing happen with a Norinco copy of a Russian Margolin 22 target pistol. It had a safety catch at the same location as the Steyr-Hahn.

Thanks for the reply. I have seen one blog posting about it today with no explanation but never a mention in any of the several books I have that sections about the Steyr-Hahn. Perhaps it is a possible design flaw but if it is, it is odd it is not mentioned by some of the most authoritative firearms authors in their books. This type of design flaw usually is mentioned.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Well after being designed over a hundred years ago the incandescent light bulb is still a very good solution for illumination, but like the M1911 it lacks many characteristics that are now expected for modern usage.

Exactly HOW, pray tell, is it that the M1911 "lacks many characteristics that are now expected for modern usage"?

It's got EVERYTHING, and in spades. How many more passive and active safety mechanisms does the "modern" world need in a firearm, for example?

Military safety standards, especially in times of war, are notoriously less stringent and often unacceptable even in peacetime for civilian safety standards.

A 1911 in Condition One is not as safe as any loaded gun can be because loaded guns are frequently dropped and the 1911 is not drop safe.

Horse pucky. Show me where there is an ACTUAL DOCUMENTED HISTORY OF THIS PROBLEM with 1911's. There is over a century of usage of this most widely copied and manufactured pistol from which to collect the data for this. I'll wait patiently for this.

As for the comment that "Military safety standards, especially in times of war, are notoriously less stringent...": Duh. But that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the design of the M1911. The difference between military and civilian "safety standards" has far more to do with the fact that the military is SUPPOSED to actively engage an enemy in armed combat than it has to do with differences in equipment safety.

In other words, the safety of the people using the hardware is far more dependent on what they're using the hardware FOR than the simple fact that they're using the hardware. War is inherently "unsafe".

And since we're talking about small arms here, the safety considerations for small arms in the military is the same as for civilians...namely that the use of the firearm in question is as safe as can be made relative to the conditions in which the firearm is designed to be used.

Regardless of that more M1911 and M1911A1 have spent time being carried by the U.S. Military with the chamber empty and the hammer down then in any other condition. Seems the Military did not think carrying cocked and locked was a particularly safe S.O.P. regardless of how mechanically safe it is.

Wrong. The military seems to think that the PROBLEM lies not with the design of the pistol, but in the PEOPLE who are monkeying around with the pistol they're carrying. No more and no less. It's not a PISTOL problem...it's a PEOPLE problem.

This is the reason why there are differing conditions in which the military has their watchstanders carrying their firearms. What condition the firearms are carried in is based on the perceived THREATCON in the area/region in which the military unit is operating in and is balanced with the organizations inherent fear of stupidity on the part of a few individuals who will always be d*cking around with their guns.

This is why, for example, the Marine sentries in the 1983 Beirut Marine barracks bombing were armed with unloaded M-16's and .45's. It had absolutely NOTHING to do with the perceived inherent safety concerns with their weapons and EVERYTHING to do with the perceived problem of a Negligent Discharge caused by a Marine d*cking with his weapons.

Soldiers and Sailors that aren't monkeying around with the gun and who are following the established procedures for loading/unloading them DO NOT HAVE NEGLIGENT DISCHARGES.

And yet NDs from drops have been occurring even if infrequently since adoption of the M1911.

Before there was "Glock Leg" there was "(fill in the name of a pistol) Leg". Do you really think more people have shot themselves with Glocks than 1911s? I really doubt that is true. You know no matter when a discussion drifts into how safe the 1911 is somebody always attempts to reinforce that argument with comments about "Glock Leg" as if nobody was shooting themselves or other people by NDs before the Glock showed up to the party.

Again...Negligent Discharges happen because of the PEOPLE factor, not the WEAPON factor. Hence the use of the word "Negligent" in "Negligent Discharge".

Interestingly, since you brought it up, there doesn't appear to be any "(fill in the name of a pistol) Leg" before the term "Glock Leg" came about. "Hog Leg" doesn't count, as this has to do with the shape of the pistol. You don't see "Colt 1911 Leg" because the instances are extremely rare, especially when compared to Glocks.

"Glock Leg" occurs because Glocks WILL fire any time the trigger is pulled/depressed by anything, finger or otherwise.

"Colt 1911 Leg" does NOT occur anywhere near the frequency of Glocks because of one or more active/passive safety devices built into the 1911 prevents the trigger from being pulled back or the hammer from falling UNLESS certain other conditions also happen first. Two great examples would be the manual safety and the grip safety. If manual safety is on, or the grip safety is not depressed, you CANNOT pull the trigger.

 

[Monac]

Thanks for the reply. I have seen one blog posting about it today with no explanation but never a mention in any of the several books I have that sections about the Steyr-Hahn. Perhaps it is a possible design flaw but if it is, it is odd it is not mentioned by some of the most authoritative firearms authors in their books. This type of design flaw usually is mentioned.

It's one of those things you learn about a gun by actually shooting it. With many of encyclopedic-type gun books, that clearly wasn't possible for the author(s). And of course, with the Steyr Hahn, it may vary with the hand of the shooter.

I used to think the Webley 32 automatic seemed like a good pistol, for example; firing one persuaded me that the H&R 32 Self Loader was actually better. The grip shape and the sights of the H&R are both superior, and the hammer of the Webley sticks out like a cow-catcher when cocked. The H&R is one of those guns that shoots much better than it looks.

That why I liked Shimek; he went out and shot stuff. His similar article on the Lahti pistol, for instance, pointed out that is was bulky and heavy enough to be a 45 instead of a 9mm and had an awkward trigger reach.

BTW, maybe you could explain to me what would be different in principle between carrying a modern DA revolver cocked and carrying a 1911 with a firing pin lock cocked (with no manual safety)? Except that the 1911 trigger is better protected by the frame, I'm really not seeing the difference, and that's what this thread started out about.

 

[Nom de Forum]

Exactly HOW, pray tell, is it that the M1911 "lacks many characteristics that are now expected for modern usage"?

Too many to list and I am surprised you have to ask. Just look at the characteristics of many pistols that are currently selling. Most of them are not similar to M1911s in anything other than having Browning derived short-recoil locking systems.

It's got EVERYTHING, and in spades. How many more passive and active safety mechanisms does the "modern" world need in a firearm, for example?

Your question misses the point. It is not more safeties, it is the desirability of how a modern pistol’s safety mechanisms operate.

Horse pucky. Show me where there is an ACTUAL DOCUMENTED HISTORY OF THIS PROBLEM with 1911's. There is over a century of usage of this most widely copied and manufactured pistol from which to collect the data for this. I'll wait patiently for this.

I am not going to do that since it is well known that a M1911 can fire after being dropped on a hard surface. The only debate is how frequently it has happened since the year 1911. Apparently it happens enough that respected firearm authorities mention it in their books and manufactures now have firing pin safeties in most new designs and modified 1911s.

As for the comment that "Military safety standards, especially in times of war, are notoriously less stringent...": Duh. But that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the design of the M1911. The difference between military and civilian "safety standards" has far more to do with the fact that the military is SUPPOSED to actively engage an enemy in armed combat than it has to do with differences in equipment safety.

In other words, the safety of the people using the hardware is far more dependent on what they're using the hardware FOR than the simple fact that they're using the hardware. War is inherently "unsafe".

And since we're talking about small arms here, the safety considerations for small arms in the military is the same as for civilians...namely that the use of the firearm in question is as safe as can be made relative to the conditions in which the firearm is designed to be used.

What is considered to be what is required to make “the use of the firearm in question is as safe as can be made relative to the conditions in which the firearm is designed to be used” has greatly changed and become more demanding since the M1911 was adopted.

Wrong. The military seems to think that the PROBLEM lies not with the design of the pistol, but in the PEOPLE who are monkeying around with the pistol they're carrying. No more and no less. It's not a PISTOL problem...it's a PEOPLE problem.

This is the reason why there are differing conditions in which the military has their watchstanders carrying their firearms. What condition the firearms are carried in is based on the perceived THREATCON in the area/region in which the military unit is operating in and is balanced with the organizations inherent fear of stupidity on the part of a few individuals who will always be d*cking around with their guns.

This is why, for example, the Marine sentries in the 1983 Beirut Marine barracks bombing were armed with unloaded M-16's and .45's. It had absolutely NOTHING to do with the perceived inherent safety concerns with their weapons and EVERYTHING to do with the perceived problem of a Negligent Discharge caused by a Marine d*cking with his weapons.

Soldiers and Sailors that aren't monkeying around with the gun and who are following the established procedures for loading/unloading them DO NOT HAVE NEGLIGENT DISCHARGES.

You make my own argument for me. The M1911 has more things for “a Marine d*icking” and Soldiers and Sailors “monkeying around” to distract them from the most important safety procedure: keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to destroy something. The mere fact you can pull the trigger of a 1911 that has the thumbsafety engaged without having a discharge creates the probability that the trigger will be pulled when the thumbsafety is thought to be engaged but is not. That is when “1911 Leg” and “1911 Whatever” occurs.

Again...Negligent Discharges happen because of the PEOPLE factor, not the WEAPON factor. Hence the use of the word "Negligent" in "Negligent Discharge".

Interestingly, since you brought it up, there doesn't appear to be any "(fill in the name of a pistol) Leg" before the term "Glock Leg" came about. "Hog Leg" doesn't count, as this has to do with the shape of the pistol. You don't see "Colt 1911 Leg" because the instances are extremely rare, especially when compared to Glocks.

"Glock Leg" occurs because Glocks WILL fire any time the trigger is pulled/depressed by anything, finger or otherwise.

"Colt 1911 Leg" does NOT occur anywhere near the frequency of Glocks because of one or more active/passive safety devices built into the 1911 prevents the trigger from being pulled back or the hammer from falling UNLESS certain other conditions also happen first. Two great examples would be the manual safety and the grip safety. If manual safety is on, or the grip safety is not depressed, you CANNOT pull the trigger.

“Glock Leg” does not occur anywhere near the frequency that it did. Amazing what having so many people getting experience with the Glock’s simple safety procedures has done to improve safe gun handling and reduce NDs.

 

[Nom de Forum]

It's one of those things you learn about a gun by actually shooting it. With many of encyclopedic-type gun books, that clearly wasn't possible for the author(s). And of course, with the Steyr Hahn, it may vary with the hand of the shooter.

I think I need more evidence before believing it is an inherent design flaw and not a problem on worn or flawed pistols. That is the type of design flaw that would normally be discovered very quickly. The reprint of the manual I have for the Steyr-Hahn that is pre-WWI does not warn of this problem. I wish someone on THR who owns one would post an explanation.

BTW, maybe you could explain to me what would be different in principle between carrying a modern DA revolver cocked and carrying a 1911 with a firing pin lock cocked (with no manual safety)? Except that the 1911 trigger is better protected by the frame, I'm really not seeing the difference, and that's what this thread started out about.

I can not explain a difference that does not exist. Doing either is a bad idea.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Exactly HOW, pray tell, is it that the M1911 "lacks many characteristics that are now expected for modern usage"?

Too many to list and I am surprised you have to ask. Just look at the characteristics of many pistols that are currently selling. Most of them are not similar to M1911s in anything other than having Browning derived short-recoil locking systems.

Translation: "There aren't any, so I'm not going to bother even citing a few to support my claim."

This isn't that difficult. What people want in a firearm today is little, if any, different than what they wanted a century ago. And the 1911 seems to have what the "modern" world wants. Reliability, accuracy, power, and (yes) safeties out the yin-yang.

It's got EVERYTHING, and in spades. How many more passive and active safety mechanisms does the "modern" world need in a firearm, for example?

Your question misses the point. It is not more safeties, it is the desirability of how a modern pistol’s safety mechanisms operate.

No, it does NOT miss the point. You claim the M1911 "lacks many characteristics that are now expected for modern usage". WHAT ARE THOSE "MANY CHARACTERISTICS"?

Your statement that it's "the desirability of how a modern pistol's safety mechanisms operate" is about as bland as it can be. What is it about how the safety mechanisms operate that people care about?

John Q. Public, in general, doesn't give a hoot about HOW the safety mechanisms actually operate. Only a very small percentage of the people who own firearms seem to actually understand the mechanics behind HOW they work. What they care about is ease of operation and that it does, in fact, work as a safety.

Horse pucky. Show me where there is an ACTUAL DOCUMENTED HISTORY OF THIS PROBLEM with 1911's. There is over a century of usage of this most widely copied and manufactured pistol from which to collect the data for this. I'll wait patiently for this.

I am not going to do that since it is well known that a M1911 can fire after being dropped on a hard surface. The only debate is how frequently it has happened since the year 1911. Apparently it happens enough that respected firearm authorities mention it in their books and manufactures now have firing pin safeties in most new designs and modified 1911s.

Of course you're not going to do that, because there is no such history. It's only "well known" under a certain set of conditions which rarely happen. "Rarely", as in "hardly ever".

By comparison, "Glock Leg" is far more prevalent. And THAT is also "well known".

As for the comment that "Military safety standards, especially in times of war, are notoriously less stringent...": Duh. But that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the design of the M1911. The difference between military and civilian "safety standards" has far more to do with the fact that the military is SUPPOSED to actively engage an enemy in armed combat than it has to do with differences in equipment safety.

In other words, the safety of the people using the hardware is far more dependent on what they're using the hardware FOR than the simple fact that they're using the hardware. War is inherently "unsafe".

And since we're talking about small arms here, the safety considerations for small arms in the military is the same as for civilians...namely that the use of the firearm in question is as safe as can be made relative to the conditions in which the firearm is designed to be used.

What is considered to be what is required to make “the use of the firearm in question is as safe as can be made relative to the conditions in which the firearm is designed to be used” has greatly changed and become more demanding since the M1911 was adopted.

No. This has not changed significantly since the introduction of the M1911. And before the M1911, safety was STILL a concern, as witnessed by how people carried the firearms of those days as well.

Safety is a concern because blowing up and shooting your own troops with faulty hardware is NOT something any military organization encourages at all.

And again, WHAT, specifically, has "greatly changed and become more demanding" about military safety requirements since the M1911 was adopted that makes the M1911 outmoded?

The answer to that is "absolutely nothing".

Wrong. The military seems to think that the PROBLEM lies not with the design of the pistol, but in the PEOPLE who are monkeying around with the pistol they're carrying. No more and no less. It's not a PISTOL problem...it's a PEOPLE problem.

This is the reason why there are differing conditions in which the military has their watchstanders carrying their firearms. What condition the firearms are carried in is based on the perceived THREATCON in the area/region in which the military unit is operating in and is balanced with the organizations inherent fear of stupidity on the part of a few individuals who will always be d*cking around with their guns.

This is why, for example, the Marine sentries in the 1983 Beirut Marine barracks bombing were armed with unloaded M-16's and .45's. It had absolutely NOTHING to do with the perceived inherent safety concerns with their weapons and EVERYTHING to do with the perceived problem of a Negligent Discharge caused by a Marine d*cking with his weapons.

Soldiers and Sailors that aren't monkeying around with the gun and who are following the established procedures for loading/unloading them DO NOT HAVE NEGLIGENT DISCHARGES.

You make my own argument for me. The M1911 has more things for “a Marine d*icking” and Soldiers and Sailors “monkeying around” to distract them from the most important safety procedure: keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to destroy something. The mere fact you can pull the trigger of a 1911 that has the thumbsafety engaged without having a discharge creates the probability that the trigger will be pulled when the thumbsafety is thought to be engaged but is not. That is when “1911 Leg” and “1911 Whatever” occurs.

Incorrect. My point here is that people monkeying around with their 1911 when they shouldn't have been has been the cause of ALL Negligent Discharges.

"Glock Leg" doesn't always happen because of people monkeying around. The design of the Glock safety mechanism allows the gun to be fired any time something depresses the trigger. This can be by a foreign object or a finger. There are several documented instances where foreign objects did just that during the holstering of a Glock and even with Glocks already holstered. That does NOT happen with a 1911, the way the 1911 safeties work. The closest you get is if the manual safety is not engaged prior to holstering a 1911 while the grip safety is being depressed by the gripping hand during the act of holstering.

Monkeying around with a Glock is, therefore, inherently MORE dangerous than the M1911.

“Glock Leg” does not occur anywhere near the frequency that it did. Amazing what having so many people getting experience with the Glock’s simple safety procedures has done to improve safe gun handling and reduce NDs.

But the fact of the matter is that it STILL DOES OCCUR, and far more frequently than anything equivalent with a 1911.

Glocks have been around since the early 1980s. In 30-plus years, they're STILL having a significant problem with "Glock Leg" at instances that are easily checked by a simple google search. And this includes people who are SUPPOSED to be "experts" with them, like police officers.

 

[barnbwt]

I think I need more evidence before believing it is an inherent design flaw and not a problem on worn or flawed pistols. That is the type of design flaw that would normally be discovered very quickly. The reprint of the manual I have for the Steyr-Hahn that is pre-WWI does not warn of this problem. I wish someone on THR who owns one would post an explanation.

The funky sear arrangement of the Steyr is enough to sell me on it being unsafe. I'll have to play with mine a bit to see if I can replicate the issue. Mine has a ridiculously light/short trigger (custom grips and fitted box; I suspect the previous owner did some smithing) to the point the hammer occasionally follows (which is why I do/will not shoot it much until I can fabricate a new sear), a 'problem' hardly unique to any given design. I do recall the trigger/sear bar on the right side was a rather funky arrangement that looked prone to issues. IIRC, it disconnected by pivoting laterally, or something (I think it also liked to fall out or misalign during disassembly)

ETA: Just messed with the trigger/safety. Pulling the trigger on safe yields an audible (but not tactile) "click", but no fire. Subsequently releasing safety does not drop the hammer (even with my example's compromised sear). Pulling the trigger yields a similar "click" before the sear releases as usual. Manually cocking the hammer before the maneuver does not produce a "click" (so slide interaction is involved)

I mentioned in another thread that I like unique guns since they are often brilliant but felled by a simple flaw or two; the Steyr Hahn is certainly an example of this. Simple and effective rotating barrel lockup in a very narrow slide (even Beretta's PX4 requires a somewhat fat slide), but bulked up by a needless parallel guide-rod and cross pin setup that adds only complexity (vs. a barrel-centric spring and blowback-style layout). Fixed internal magazine was a definite bonehead move on the part of the government procurement folks making those decisions. I do not believe there is a positive firing pin safety, but there is a sturdy pin return spring.

If given a heel mag release (as would have been the case, being a Germanic design) and single stack mag, the gun would have been about as functionally successful as the early 1911 (yes, I would make that claim), both being reasonably reliable but somewhat complex designs (both as compared to modern standards) as originally executed. Both very ergonomically friendly (the Steyr has way less potential for hammer bite with its taller hammer axis), and the Steyr is arguably simpler in construction and easier to service. The only safety issue I'm aware of had to do with the 9mm Para conversions, whose higher pressure I understand could cause the firing pin to shear through its retention and shoot out the rear of the gun in the event of a primer pierce (I'm not entirely sure if the 1911 is tons better in this regard, since it seems like it could be an issue an any exposed-pin design. The Steyr does have a rather large pin hole, though). The design issues of the Steyr could be resolved rather easily to produce a 1911-like gun, from both a geometry, operational, and --probably-- effectiveness perspective.

TCB

 

[barnbwt]

BTW, maybe you could explain to me what would be different in principle between carrying a modern DA revolver cocked and carrying a 1911 with a firing pin lock cocked (with no manual safety)

The difference is a grip safety, which prevents the trigger from jarring off the sear upon muzzle-up impact, for one. That's why the Glock has the dingus, after all, and why we don't carry cocked revolvers. Which, as you said, is where we started this thread at. BTW, a firing pin safety dependent upon trigger position isn't really a user safety so much as a drop safety or out of battery detonation safety (one could also say the same about any trigger-driven fire interruption control, which I would classify the Glock's parallel/superimposed lever dingus on the trigger as, even though it technically operates independently of the actual trigger shoe, simply because in practice its operation is inseparable from human trigger actuation. It's not a manual safety so much as a single action trigger made resistant to kinetic jar-off with an integral interrupting mechanism)

Unlike the R51, the 1911 safety is very easily (I honestly think, too easily) depressed, and I could definitely see the gun falling muzzle up onto and uneven surface --curb, rail, shoe, etc.-- and impacting on the grip safety, depressing it, then arresting completely and pulling the trigger back under its own considerable mass. The R51 requires both more travel and force to deactivate the safety lever, and also has it tucked a bit further back into the elongated frame/slide shrouding the hammer. While the lever is the full length of the grip, you don't get good leverage on it except for the last inch or so. It's also surprisingly satisfying to get a feedback "click" from the safety compared to the 1911's mushy feel (at least it is on my cheapo Armscorp frame).

TCB