Locked and loaded carry ?
- Thread starter Lavan
- Start date
Just remember, NO military formation in any country, on any continent authorized "cocked and locked" carry of 1911s or FN Hi-powers. Indeed, you were punished if caught carrying a round in the chamber. No Military Policeman who was likely to enter the "seat of government", that is Washington, DC, was allowed to carry a 1911. This regulation existed until the Beretta was issued in the mid 80s.
It was quite common for armies on both sides during WWII to train their soldiers to carry a pistol on an empty chamber. The U.S. Army Field Manual for the 1911A1 pistol from 1940 reinforces this idea. On Page 19, the manual recommends that, “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.”
You all are really going to want to review the below link, fascinating stuff, proves that good information from 82 years ago is still applicable today,
https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref/FM/PDFs/FM23-35.pdf
You all are really going to want to review the below link, fascinating stuff, proves that good information from 82 years ago is still applicable today,
https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref/FM/PDFs/FM23-35.pdf
Last edited:
I guess, though my needs and desires carrying concealed in public as a civilian are likely different than those of a soldier during wartime.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This is true, but stop and reflect for just a moment, WHY the military would have such a rule? Yes, it is for "safety" but its not for safe carry, it has nothing to do with the mechanical safety of the gun. IT's a rule for the general safety of the military.
While the "official" reason is "Safety" the real reason is safety, in the hands of the un/undertrained young men who carry the weapons. And a portion of those young men WILL do stupid things, sometimes intentionally, in the absence of "adult" (NCO, usually) supervision. IT happens. Been there, done that, personally experienced it.
Also remember that 99%+ of the time these young men are carrying the weapon they are not in actual combat. Never heard of a case, anywhere, where some soldier got in trouble for putting a round in the chamber when someone was actually shooting at him, or immediately likely to...
Its the rest of the time the arm is carried where the regulation applies, and its there so that there is a regulation, both to reduce the likilhood of stupid mistakes and "playing" with the gun, and also to give the military a legal "club" to beat the solider with when/if he breaks the rule.
The military has tons of rules & regulations that COULD be used in civilian life, and aren't, simply because they don't apply well, or at all. Using military regulations as an illustration is fine. Using them as a personal preference is your business.
Requiring them to be used by private citizens in the wide range of situations that civilians encounter is...suboptimal... (and in some cases, stupid, IMNHO
)Also, consider this, nearly ALL the manuals from all the gumakers, all say not to load the chamber until you are ready to shoot. ITs boiler plate protection for the makers, and while possible and even sound advice in some cases, many, many people don't do it, for reasons they consider valid, good and proper.
I'm not sure that I would consider any military SOP as appropriate for civilian concealed carry. The typical acquaintance that most military personnel have with their primary weapons is pretty limited in peace time. So SOP's are generally pretty restrictive because most everyone doesn't use/carry/fire the weapons frequently to keep good habits.
I say this based on a limited 3 year enlistment and 4 years commissioned in the Army. While enlisted after Basic training I didn't even have a personal weapon assigned for one year while in training and after that fired personal weapon for qualification twice and carried on field exercises without blanks about half-a-dozen exercises. While commissioned carried a rifle a lot more but only fired twice for qualification and again didn't even have blanks or magazines for exercises.
I know I was pretty cautious about many of my peers when live ammo was involved because the behaviors acquired when no ammo was involved were pretty relaxed about muzzle discipline.
I say this based on a limited 3 year enlistment and 4 years commissioned in the Army. While enlisted after Basic training I didn't even have a personal weapon assigned for one year while in training and after that fired personal weapon for qualification twice and carried on field exercises without blanks about half-a-dozen exercises. While commissioned carried a rifle a lot more but only fired twice for qualification and again didn't even have blanks or magazines for exercises.
I know I was pretty cautious about many of my peers when live ammo was involved because the behaviors acquired when no ammo was involved were pretty relaxed about muzzle discipline.
Before I elaborate any more of 1911s and military service. let me say that I currently own and have owned many shiny and finely tuned 1911s. For several decades, i carried a 1911 cocked and locked in holster and "mexican style".
When I was a young paratrooper in the 1/508 Parachute infantry, I was issues a 1911 to go with my M-79 grenade launcher. In two years I got to shoot it twice. However, every time I drew the weapon, I had to disassemble and clean it before turning in to the armorer. I am sure that I field stripped and cleaned the piece more times than it got fired. Thus, the issued guns looked worn and torn, not from battle but from cleaning. Fast forward to Viet Nam, when I joined my unit, all the weapons had at least a year of service in the jungle, mountains and rice paddies. The finish was worn off all our rifles and handguns. After stopping for the night, it took 20 minutes to clean your M-16 and 30 minutes to scrub the rust off your .45 and three mags. Leather holsters were constantly waterlogged and made guns rust overnight. But you could insert the pistol into a plastic bag before holstering but the gun could not be deployed in less than three minutes. Few functioned properly and none were combat accurate.
then one day, word spread that anyone carrying a .1911 could turn it in and get it off their weapon cards. EVERY single man in the company carrying a 45 got rid of it. Finally the brass realized that a pistol could not protect the troops from what was killing and maiming them. To get my load weight back up, I started carrying an extra frag and a couple of mags.
Here is shot of my STI custom 9mm held by it's future owner when she is old enough.
When I was a young paratrooper in the 1/508 Parachute infantry, I was issues a 1911 to go with my M-79 grenade launcher. In two years I got to shoot it twice. However, every time I drew the weapon, I had to disassemble and clean it before turning in to the armorer. I am sure that I field stripped and cleaned the piece more times than it got fired. Thus, the issued guns looked worn and torn, not from battle but from cleaning. Fast forward to Viet Nam, when I joined my unit, all the weapons had at least a year of service in the jungle, mountains and rice paddies. The finish was worn off all our rifles and handguns. After stopping for the night, it took 20 minutes to clean your M-16 and 30 minutes to scrub the rust off your .45 and three mags. Leather holsters were constantly waterlogged and made guns rust overnight. But you could insert the pistol into a plastic bag before holstering but the gun could not be deployed in less than three minutes. Few functioned properly and none were combat accurate.
then one day, word spread that anyone carrying a .1911 could turn it in and get it off their weapon cards. EVERY single man in the company carrying a 45 got rid of it. Finally the brass realized that a pistol could not protect the troops from what was killing and maiming them. To get my load weight back up, I started carrying an extra frag and a couple of mags.
Here is shot of my STI custom 9mm held by it's future owner when she is old enough.
Attachments
What they can't see ... can't get them upset !
I like both the 1911 and Browning Hi-Power .
Gary
In my experience the people opposed to cocked and locked carry aren’t concerned about a lack of safety due to the hammer being back. I can see how that might be true in some cases for people inexperienced with firearms.
The general opposition these days seems to be that having a manual safety that needs to be disengaged will introduce excess time or confusion into the process of dealing with a threat and that will result in the death of the person using that firearm. Again, I think if a person isn’t used to using a manual safety then that makes some since, but being unfamiliar with the manual of arms of any firearm is an invitation for disaster.
The general opposition these days seems to be that having a manual safety that needs to be disengaged will introduce excess time or confusion into the process of dealing with a threat and that will result in the death of the person using that firearm. Again, I think if a person isn’t used to using a manual safety then that makes some since, but being unfamiliar with the manual of arms of any firearm is an invitation for disaster.
Last edited:
Its not the fact that the feature is present that is the problem, it is the IDEA that having that feature present WILL result in the death of the person using that firearm that is the problem. That, and the moron's who espouse it are very vocal about it.
Many of these same folks also yammer about having a pistol capable of single action firing will cause you to die, DIE, DIE!!!
The only firearms I know that have an automatic safety, one that engages on its own and stays on until manually disengaged are certain break action shotguns. No handgun I know of has such a feature.
Having a particular feature available does not automatically cause everyone to use it. Using it, then FORGETTING you did is not a fault of the gun, it is the fault of the user. Un or undertrained users are not a flaw of the gun design. Doing something not in line with someone's personal ideas of what is "best" (like using a safety, or shooting SA) does not mean the user who does will die. Yet that is what we constantly hear. It is an argument taken to foolish extremes. If you have a concern that under stress you will forget to take the safety (that you put ON) OFF, then simply don't put the safety ON. Don't endlessly tell me and the public at large that your personal lack of faith in your abilities is a valid reason for us to only do what you do.
Not just true with guns, but true with every device all the way down to your kitchen knives and internet keyboard.
Just to be clear, I don’t disagree with this and that’s why I included the last sentence in that quote.
I would agree there are a lot of blanket statements made these days with regards to a number of aspects of firearm usage.