1911

[WalkingWolf]

Again, it's all in how you've been trained. That, and I'm pretty sure I never said the brain is infallible. The brain is the ultimate "safety" device. But, it's not infallible. That DEA agent proved that.

When I was first introduced the the 1911, I was taught to use all the safeties it has. Not to circumvent them. That is what I'm used to. YMMV. In a life or death situation, your training is what takes over. If you're used to doing certain things, that is what you're going to do. Part of the reason it's important to train for those situations, is to instill what some call muscle memory. Part of the reason I don't own a Beretta is because it's manual safety works the opposite from a 1911. The Taurus, on the other hand works the same. Up is safe, down is not.

Thank you for answering. But here is the thing, many claim that the 1911 was designed to be carried cocked and locked, history has shown that is not true. The gun was designed to be carried with the hammer down on a inertia firing pin. The SA Armies carried by the Army and even the early SW DA revolvers were not safe to carry with a round under the hammer. They both had positive firing pins, JMB made a departure from the positive firing pin in the 1911, and earlier models submitted, so it could be carried with a chambered round hammer down. There would be no need for a inertia FP unless if the gun is carried cocked and locked. In fact directly after the 1911 was adopted the Army published the Arms Manual in 1913 the instructed the 1911 to be carried condition 2. I consider condition 1 unsafe for most people, because of lack of proper training. To make matters worse they buy 1911 with even lighter trigger pull, extended thumb safeties that are easier to knock off.

The fact is that the 1911/condition 2, and the SAA Army are safer with numpties, and we all can be numpties in the right or wrong circumstances. JMB designed the thumb safety as an intermediate means for horseman to make is gun relatively safe after firing. This problem does not exist on a SAA Army. Even the most well trained person, can have a brain fart. I would not give anybody slack for a brain fart on a jury, especially if they carried in a condition conducive to brain farts. The only thing I would want to hear is "sorry I blanked up" which I would still vote for guilty, but it would make some difference on my sentencing vote.

Basically there are no excuses not even brain farts, so unless a person knows they will never make a mistake in their live, they should be very conscious of the outcome of assuming they will never have a brain fart.

 

[Big Gay Al]

The thumb safety was put on because the cavalry wanted it. JMB thought the grip safety was enough. As far as what condition you carry one in, most will tell you condition 1. It's quicker to bring into action, than either condition 2 or 3. Except for when I was in the army, I've always carried condition 1. It's all dependent on what you train for. I've trained for condition 1. If I carried any other way, chances are good, when the SHTF, I'd likely end up dead, without firing a shot, and probably with a stupid look on my face, trying to figure out why my gun didn't go bang.

If you train for condition 2, fine. Whatever works for you. For me, it's condition 1 with the 1911. But, that's what I've trained for. If you handed me a Glock, my thumb would probably go crazy looking for the thumb safety.

 

[WalkingWolf]

The thumb safety was put on because the cavalry wanted it. JMB thought the grip safety was enough. As far as what condition you carry one in, most will tell you condition 1. It's quicker to bring into action, than either condition 2 or 3. Except for when I was in the army, I've always carried condition 1. It's all dependent on what you train for. I've trained for condition 1. If I carried any other way, chances are good, when the SHTF, I'd likely end up dead, without firing a shot, and probably with a stupid look on my face, trying to figure out why my gun didn't go bang.

If you train for condition 2, fine. Whatever works for you. For me, it's condition 1 with the 1911. But, that's what I've trained for. If you handed me a Glock, my thumb would probably go crazy looking for the thumb safety.

Most people who carry condition 1 claim it is the way JMB designed it, and because of peer pressure. I have seen it mentioned several times on here that a person who carries condition 2 and gets bombarded with all the BS, and of course the design claim which is false. So they break down and carry condition 1. That is fine, but I have no sympathy for those who carry condition 1, and then have brain farts. To carry condition 1, a person must be perfect and never make a mistake. I don't know anybody who has gone through life without mistakes. I have a friend missing a finger from a brain fart and a meat grinder. Another missing a thumb from a brain fart with a mower. I witnessed a man die on a ban saw from a brain fart. All three ignored the design of the machine they were operating, and thought they were well trained.

Every ND, I have investigated had three elements, a gun, a booger finger, and a brain fart. I fired a officer for a brain fart with a M-59 that he carried when nobody was around with the hammer back. Luckily he only killed a wall, during a search. Had he been carrying properly I might have given him just a suspension. I allowed officers to carry a 1911, if I caught them in condition 1 they would be fired on the spot. Most decided to stay with the issued M-59, or 39. As a citizen you have your choice, but in that choice you had better not have a brain fart resulting in personal injury. Condition 1 is only safe when done properly with NO mistakes. Mistakes are human nature.

 

[Big Gay Al]

Every ND, I have investigated had three elements, a gun, a booger finger, and a brain fart. I fired a officer for a brain fart with a M-59 that he carried when nobody was around with the hammer back. Luckily he only killed a wall, during a search. Had he been carrying properly I might have given him just a suspension. I allowed officers to carry a 1911, if I caught them in condition 1 they would be fired on the spot. Most decided to stay with the issued M-59, or 39. As a citizen you have your choice, but in that choice you had better not have a brain fart resulting in personal injury. Condition 1 is only safe when done properly with NO mistakes. Mistakes are human nature.

I used to have a S&W Model 59. I liked it a lot, but it was not designed to be carried with the hammer cocked. All the duty holsters I have for my 1911 only work if the pistol is cocked. Otherwise the safety strap doesn't fit. In the end, it doesn't really matter how you carry. If you don't follow proper safety procedures, sooner or later you're gonna have an accident.

I'm not perfect by any means. But when I handle firearms, they are always treated as if they're loaded, whether I "think" they are or not. I've had plenty of other mistakes, including slipping on water and breaking my ankle, but I've managed to avoid having any sort of ND. Hopefully, I'll never have that problem.

 

[MAC702]

...To carry condition 1, a person must be perfect and never make a mistake....

That's insulting. And bullcrap.

If perfection was required, than the manual safety and grip safety would not be needed.

Or are you saying that those of us who carry thusly without incident (including those who have lived their whole lives thusly) are perfect?

 

[WalkingWolf]

That's insulting. And bullcrap.

If perfection was required, than the manual safety and grip safety would not be needed.

Or are you saying that those of us who carry thusly without incident (including those who have lived their whole lives thusly) are perfect?

Opinions are not bullcrap, but the reason for the thumb safety is clear, it was added so the horseback soldier could relatively make the gun safe while mounted. The gun WAS designed to be carried loaded with the hammer down, and for good reason. Cocking the hammer is clearly more effort then flicking a safety off. It was definite, when a soldier was prepared to shoot, before that the revolver already had the hammer down after it was discharged. Yes to carry with a hammer back on a loaded gun a person has to be perfect. There is no room for mistakes. A finger on the trigger, plus safety off could be deadly. With the hammer down, though not smart, a finger on the trigger is just a finger on the trigger.

If you don't like hearing history, and her facts, too bad.

 

[MAC702]

Opinions are not bullcrap, but the reason for the thumb safety is clear, it was added so the horseback soldier could relatively make the gun safe while mounted. The gun WAS designed to be carried loaded with the hammer down, and for good reason. Cocking the hammer is clearly more effort then flicking a safety off. It was definite, when a soldier was prepared to shoot, before that the revolver already had the hammer down after it was discharged. Yes to carry with a hammer back on a loaded gun a person has to be perfect. There is no room for mistakes. A finger on the trigger, plus safety off could be deadly. With the hammer down, though not smart, a finger on the trigger is just a finger on the trigger.

If you don't like hearing history, and her facts, too bad.

Yes, yes, you've spouted the history plenty of times. I did not dispute it. I simply reject its modern application, and have ignored it, which means I've also not argued against it. Focus on what I did reply to, please.

If you think opinions use the words "must be" then that should be made more clear. You said: "To carry condition 1, a person must be perfect and never make a mistake..." I'm calling that crap. That's my opinion as an imperfect human.

I actually appreciate your interjection of the history, but I'm not going to let it be gospel for modern handgun practices. I'm also not pedantic about why safeties are on what guns. But I'm also not famous enough to rewrite modern discipline and manuals-of-arms. The fact remains that a 1911 carried cocked-and-locked is not unsafe anymore than a Glock, a revolver, XD, ad naseum, carried with a round in the chamber.

An idiot will shoot himself no matter what you give him. In fact, someone who knows nothing about guns is more likely to have an accident with a DA trigger before he figures out how to take the safety off of a 1911.

If carrying empty or carrying hammer down was actually better, I would choose a different platform than a 1911 in order to facilitate having my weapon actually shootable. And "shootable" should also imply the accuracy that comes from a single-action trigger, but that is a whole 'nother argument in many ways.

 

[Big Gay Al]

According to the U.S. Army field manual of 1914:

If it is desired to make the pistol ready for instant use and for firing
with the least possible delay the maximum number of shots,
draw back the slide (3), insert a cartridge by hand into the chamber
of the barrel (2), allow the slide (3) to close, then lock the slide
(3) and the cocked hammer (23) by pressing the safety lock (36)
upward, and insert a loaded magazine. The slide (3) and hammer
(23) being thus positively locked, the pistol may be carried safely at
full cock, and it is only necessary to press down the safety lock (36)
(which is located within easy reach of the thumb) when raising the
pistol to the firing position.

That says to me it was designed with condition one carry in mind. The military usually doesn't let soldiers carry that way, because typically the pistol is not a primary weapon. But for those that do count on it, it is sometimes authorized to be carried that way.

 

[WalkingWolf]

According to the U.S. Army field manual of 1914:
That says to me it was designed with condition one carry in mind. The military usually doesn't let soldiers carry that way, because typically the pistol is not a primary weapon. But for those that do count on it, it is sometimes authorized to be carried that way.

And what does that manual say for carry the rest of the time? Besides the manual of 1913 which is closer to the adoption calls for condition 2 carry. Give me a while to search the 1914 manual. The gun was originally designed without a thumb safety, and you think it would have been safe to carry cocked with no safety?

The 1914 field manual says guess what? Refers back to the Small Arms Manual of 1913. Besides the field manual was for combat(instant use) please give me the link so I can read the entire context.

I don't know why you and others are trying so hard to convince people of something there is absolutely no evidence of. If you have evidence that JMB designed a gun without a safety to be used with a safety please provide it.

BTW later manuals called for condition three, so it was actually designed to be carried with a empty chamber...

 

[Wolfstanus]

It's no safer than a glock with no safety. That trigger safety is a laugh in a half.

 

[Big Gay Al]

It was designed with condition one carry in mind. What it was designed for, and how the generals tell everyone to carry are typically 2 different things.

Even without the thumb safety, it still has a grip safety, so yes, I think it would be safe to carry cocked and loaded with the grip safety.

So far as I know, the military has always ordered condition 3 carry, ever since the 1911 came into service. Again, for most combat uses, the pistol is not a primary weapon.

 

[WalkingWolf]

It was designed with condition one carry in mind. What it was designed for, and how the generals tell everyone to carry are typically 2 different things.

Even without the thumb safety, it still has a grip safety, so yes, I think it would be safe to carry cocked and loaded with the grip safety.

So far as I know, the military has always ordered condition 3 carry, ever since the 1911 came into service. Again, for most combat uses, the pistol is not a primary weapon.

I have gone through the Field Service Regulations, United States Army page by page, and I missed the quote you posted. Maybe you could give me a helping hand by telling what page it is on?
http://archive.org/stream/fieldservicecorr00unit#page/n0/mode/2up

 

[Big Gay Al]

Page 13 in the manual of 1912, as revised 1914.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Page 13 in the manual of 1912, as revised 1914.

How about a link, it is not there in the revised manual of 1914, 1912 does not come up in search of documents.

Never mind I found it~~LOL

You forgot to leave a little tiny bit out did you not? LOL

Or did you just stop reading after trying to find something to justify your reasoning?

In the important notes it clearly says not to carry in the holster cocked and the safety on, except in emergencies.

 

[MAC702]

...Give me a while to search the 1914 manual. The gun was originally designed without a thumb safety, and you think it would have been safe to carry cocked with no safety?...

Reread his excerpt again. It clearly says to take the safety off when raising to firing position.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Reread his excerpt again. It clearly says to take the safety off when raising to firing position.

I read the manual and it clearly states NOT to carry the gun cocked in the holster with the safety on, except in emergencies.

http://archive.org/stream/descriptionofaut00unitrich#page/16/mode/2up

 

[MAC702]

...Besides the manual of 1913 which is closer to the adoption calls for condition 2 carry...

Or you can read it as a later manual being revised after actual field experience dictated otherwise. "Closer to the adoption" is not an argument in your favor. At best, it is irrelevant. As mentioned, military practices are not implemented solely out of safety versus combat readiness criteria.

 

[MAC702]

I read the manual and it clearly states NOT to carry the gun cocked in the holster with the safety on, except in emergencies.

http://archive.org/stream/descriptionofaut00unitrich#page/16/mode/2up

Once again, you reiterate your old point while ignoring the one I am actually making.

You stated something about the gun not being designed originally with a safety to invalidate his argument about its use of being carried cocked (let's assume a time of emergency). Yet his excerpt clearly showed it was referencing a firearm that DID have a safety.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Or you can read it as a later manual being revised after actual field experience dictated otherwise. "Closer to the adoption" is not an argument in your favor. At best, it is irrelevant. As mentioned, military practices are not implemented solely out of safety versus combat readiness criteria.

The point is they ARE implemented out of safety, I have never been in a branch of the service that safety was not number one, or a police dept. Your claim above is absolutely silly. If combat readiness was the concern there would always be round in the stove pipe, then and now. Of course in battle the hammer will be back and the safety off. Duhhhhhhhhhhh

And his excerpt was remember for instant use, not normal duty carry. Are you guys planning on instantly using your guns? And it was not my point it was the US Armies point.

BTW here is the photo page of the manual the section covers method of use~And the first paragraph he conveniently left out is clear that the gun is about to be used. There is no mention of the safety in the first paragraph. You guys are funny.

http://archive.org/stream/descriptionofaut00unitrich#page/12/mode/2up

 

[MAC702]

... Duhhhhhhhhhhh...

And with that, I'm out. I forgot that anyone is allowed to play on the Internet.