Blue Duck357
New member
Having heard confirmed from Tamara that Brownings original design was for the 1911 to have no manual safety feeling th grip safety was enough. Would (or does) anyone feel comfortable carrying a 1911 cocked and unlocked?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Would you carry a 1911 the way J.M.B. intended?
- Thread starter Blue Duck357
- Start date
Derek Zeanah
New member
Not much different than a Glock from a safety perspective, is it? Shorter (better) trigger, but a grip safety.
Sure I would. Having said that, I don't.
Sure I would. Having said that, I don't.
A shame that the inventor is not able to answer that question.
Speculation......the gun that was adopted as the 1911 Government may have been intended for carry with the hammer down.
Reasoning for that guess. J.M.Browning anticipated selling .45 ACP handguns to the U.S. Military. In 1905 he built two versions of what he had in mind. Both covered in the same patent. One version did not have exposed hammer but did have external manual safety which blocked the internal hammer and locked the slide. The other had external hammer and no manual safety. Both had the grip safety. Mr Browning did not argue the merits of either the hammer version or the hammerless version. He was ready with both.
At the insistance of the U.S. Cavalry, the exposed hammer version was furthur developed and the "hammerless" model was never put into production. The hammer version was put into production by Colt prior to the Army trials. When the Army specifications were written, manual safety was a specified feature. An easy addition as it was already covered in Brownings specs and patent.
The 1911 government pistol came into being with the acceptance trials of 1911. As designed by John Browning but also as specified by the Army.
So there.....Sam
Speculation......the gun that was adopted as the 1911 Government may have been intended for carry with the hammer down.
Reasoning for that guess. J.M.Browning anticipated selling .45 ACP handguns to the U.S. Military. In 1905 he built two versions of what he had in mind. Both covered in the same patent. One version did not have exposed hammer but did have external manual safety which blocked the internal hammer and locked the slide. The other had external hammer and no manual safety. Both had the grip safety. Mr Browning did not argue the merits of either the hammer version or the hammerless version. He was ready with both.
At the insistance of the U.S. Cavalry, the exposed hammer version was furthur developed and the "hammerless" model was never put into production. The hammer version was put into production by Colt prior to the Army trials. When the Army specifications were written, manual safety was a specified feature. An easy addition as it was already covered in Brownings specs and patent.
The 1911 government pistol came into being with the acceptance trials of 1911. As designed by John Browning but also as specified by the Army.
So there.....Sam
How does this new legend fit in with the story that the grip safety was an army mandated change that Browning reluctantly complied with?
Some Euro SWAT teams use HPs cocked, not locked (condition 0). I guess they use the finger off the trigger rule the Glock guys are always bringing up.
Some Euro SWAT teams use HPs cocked, not locked (condition 0). I guess they use the finger off the trigger rule the Glock guys are always bringing up.
JMB's 1905, at least some of them, had grip safeties. Some had thumb safeties and some had both.
It was the military specs that called for a "Self activating safety" that required no effort on the part of the shooter to disenage it. That meant a grip safety for the military trials. JMB would have put a thumb safety on the psitol from the start if the military had one in the specs. Everything I have read about the tests, which lasted for years, indicated that the pistols were to be carried with a loaded chamber and the hammer cocked. It was the Cavalry that did the testing and they discovered that it was a lot easier to fire more than one shot unintentionaly with a semi-auto that had no manual safety than it was with a single action revolver. I really wonder how many horses expired due to a 230 grain slug to the head during testing.
Returning to the original question: Nope, thumb safeties add just that much more to the equation. I hade carried in Condition 0 but that was while we were searching for a b/g that had shot another police officer. To say that we were a tad worked up would an understatement.
It was the military specs that called for a "Self activating safety" that required no effort on the part of the shooter to disenage it. That meant a grip safety for the military trials. JMB would have put a thumb safety on the psitol from the start if the military had one in the specs. Everything I have read about the tests, which lasted for years, indicated that the pistols were to be carried with a loaded chamber and the hammer cocked. It was the Cavalry that did the testing and they discovered that it was a lot easier to fire more than one shot unintentionaly with a semi-auto that had no manual safety than it was with a single action revolver. I really wonder how many horses expired due to a 230 grain slug to the head during testing.
Returning to the original question: Nope, thumb safeties add just that much more to the equation. I hade carried in Condition 0 but that was while we were searching for a b/g that had shot another police officer. To say that we were a tad worked up would an understatement.
Realy no different than carrying a fully loaded Glock in my opinion. funny how an exposed hammer makes folks nervous. To be compleatly honest..please dont scold me...I have never used a manual safety regularly on anything but a 1911 or HP while carrying. When I am hunting I regularly carry shotguns and rifles in condition 0 with no uneasy feelings or scared looks from fellow hunters. Never had a ND or AD <knock wood>. If you keep your finger off the tirgger the gun just aint going to go off...if it does as a result of some unreal chain of events and mechanical failures , you have your religious dedication to muzzle disciplin to save the day.
Sorry guys, but I don't think carrying a 1911 cocked and UNlocked is the same as carrying a chambered Glock.
As I understand it, in an GI-pattern 1911, the only thing keeping the hammer from falling is the sear engagement and the grip safety. I've heard that the later "series" models have a firing pin block that requires the trigger to be to the rear before the firing pin can move foreward, is this correct?
In a Glock, the firing pin is not at "full cock" until the trigger is pulled to the rear. There is no way for a sear to slip before the trigger is to the rear in a properly-configured Glock.
As I understand it, in an GI-pattern 1911, the only thing keeping the hammer from falling is the sear engagement and the grip safety. I've heard that the later "series" models have a firing pin block that requires the trigger to be to the rear before the firing pin can move foreward, is this correct?
In a Glock, the firing pin is not at "full cock" until the trigger is pulled to the rear. There is no way for a sear to slip before the trigger is to the rear in a properly-configured Glock.
Would (or does) anyone feel comfortable carrying a 1911 cocked and unlocked?
It's there so I use it. However, I have no problems with carrying in an open top IWB holster. If the safety would get swiped off, the grip safety is still there. My gun does not have the firing pin safety as the Colt Series 80 does.
Edward429451
Moderator
Yes I would and no I dont.
Its amazing, even in this late day how many people are terrified of the look of a holstered, cocked pistol. Especially in a crossdraw holster.
Its amazing, even in this late day how many people are terrified of the look of a holstered, cocked pistol. Especially in a crossdraw holster.
weldonjr2001
New member
Very good, sinecure.
Am I wrong in believing the 1911 was designed for miltary use, to be carried with no round in the chamber in a flap holster? I humped an M60 for a short time and an M79 for a shorter time, and SOP was no round in the chamber on the 1911 carried as a personal weapon.
I do occasionally carry my 1911 in winter, but cocked and locked, as a concept, just makes me nervous.
I do occasionally carry my 1911 in winter, but cocked and locked, as a concept, just makes me nervous.
I'd say no.. cocked and locked is the way to go, even if you are kepping your finger off the trigger there is stuffthat can get in the way holstering and unholstering.. the light trigger of a 1911 is not the same as a glock.
By the way I'm leary of Glock as a CCW gun without the "new york" trigger job. I know lots of ppl do it, I just don't feel comfy about it.
By the way I'm leary of Glock as a CCW gun without the "new york" trigger job. I know lots of ppl do it, I just don't feel comfy about it.
J. M.'s 1911 was designed without
a thumb safety. Like any pistol or revolver of the time, the user cocked the weapon for the first shot.
The thumb safety was added to solve the problem of lowering the hammer on a live round while mounted.
The grip safety was added at the Army's request. J. M.'s prior guns with grip and thumb safeties were hammerless (actually concealed hammer) guns that could not have the hammer lowered.
Oddly enough, the bureaucrats got it right that time. The cocked and locked feature of the 1911, and it's reliability, make the ultimate defensive sidearm.
DFBonnett, the military manual of arms for 1911s has nothing to do with firearms design. It has more to do with the military's attitude toward handguns and soldiers, to wit: "Handguns don't matter and soldiers are stupid."
a thumb safety. Like any pistol or revolver of the time, the user cocked the weapon for the first shot.
The thumb safety was added to solve the problem of lowering the hammer on a live round while mounted.
The grip safety was added at the Army's request. J. M.'s prior guns with grip and thumb safeties were hammerless (actually concealed hammer) guns that could not have the hammer lowered.
Oddly enough, the bureaucrats got it right that time. The cocked and locked feature of the 1911, and it's reliability, make the ultimate defensive sidearm.
DFBonnett, the military manual of arms for 1911s has nothing to do with firearms design. It has more to do with the military's attitude toward handguns and soldiers, to wit: "Handguns don't matter and soldiers are stupid."
I have a 70's series with a pinned grip safety. Never had a single spot of worry carrying it (during competition and training). Never had it shoot unless I pulled the trigger. I have no intention of using it for CCW though, got a Kimber CDP that I am keeping stock for that purpose. I hear a lot about lawyers using our customizations and reloaded ammo as evidence we were "looking for a fight" or are "man-hunters", but have never seen evidence of such. The Kimber is staying stock because it came out of the box so damn good! LAter.