I wonder if people were complaining when the hammer block safeties started appearing on revolvers a hundred years ago? The 1911 was an advance in more ways than one and was generally a safer gun than most contempory revolvers.
I don't think there was much complaining about those "safeties" back then, because they were completely internal (no keyhole to serve as a constant visual reminder) and they were actually an improvement in the handling safety (drop safety) of the guns.
The 1911 was a "safer" gun mechanically, but there were a great number of accidents them, due to the "learning curve" of the era. Today we know a bit better, but back then a lot of men, including some who became senior officers in the military were not comfortable with the safey of the 1911 Patton was reputed to have had an accidental discharge with a 1911 in his junior officer days and distrusted them. Can't say for sure about that, but note he carried two revolvers by choice.
[QUOTEAt any rate, the army's NCO manual of 1917 specifically said to carry only five rounds in revolvers but it also said the 1911 .45 auto could be carried hammer down on a chambered round. ][/QUOTE]
The Army of those days was an interesting blend of hardcore tradtiionalism, even in the face of improved technology, and unhesitating acceptence of some "new tech" at face value. And the blend was by no means even across the board or on any specific issue.
Army had decades of Colt (and a few others) revolvers that had to be carried empty under the hammer for drop/impact safety. So I find it quite easy to believe their manual said carry only 5, even if the current revolvers were safe with 6.
And at the same time, the Army had recently done pretty extensive testing before adopting the 1911, and knew about its inertia firing pin, and that no blow to the lowered hammer is likely to set off the round. Using the standards of the day, it was extremely drop safe.
And another thing to consider, while the manual said it was safe to carry with the hammer down on a live round, what was the ordered standard of carry? I can't say for the early years, but I know that from the WWII era on, if you were on guard, or just carrying, and not in combat, the rule was chamber empty! Magazine loaded, but chamber empty!
There has been some argument lately that claims that method of carry indicates the brass knew that the 1911 wasn't safe to carry chamber loaded, cocked and locked or hammer down. This is, of course, horse hockey. Those regs were in place because of safety concerns alright, safety concerns about the thousands of young men, virtually always under trained with the pistol by our standards today, carrying with a round in the chamber.
Remember the military's point of view does not put the protection of the individual soldier/seaman/airman/marine above the mission.
Congress/state legislatures didn't pass a law requiring the hammer block safeties in the revolvers, the makers thought it up as a useful improvement.
Another big difference right there.
Seatbelt laws came along long after seatbelts did, and a lot of us resent them. Not because its a good idea, but because we are forced to do it, under penalty of fine. What was once freedom of choice is now no choice, its a legal requirement. For our own good, of course. Plus its a money maker for the govt. Win, win in their eyes, I suppose. And as the new generation grows up, knowing nothing else, the majority will automatically assume its the only way its done. You wear seatbelts, guns have locks, that's just the way its suppose to be....tell them that at one time, we actually had a choice in the matter, and get a blank stare, and often, a "why would you not do it that way?" They know nothing else.
Note: I am NOT saying we should not wear seatbelts, just that we didn't get fined for making a stupid or risky decision, and now, we do. We should all wear our setbelts all the time we are on the road. its the law, after all...
