I don't recall this being discussed but thought I read it somewhere. The 1911 was designed so it could be carried empty chamber by cavalry troops and the reason the recoil spring cap is serrated and the lower frame extends only so far, is so they could load the gun one handed ready to fire by pushing the nose against a hard surface like a saddle pommel or such due to holding the reins in the other hand. If you put your 1911 against the edge of a table top or something and press forward all the way, you are ready to fire. Try it.
1911 cocking myth or real?
- Thread starter Tom2
- Start date
walnut1704
New member
Kind of hard on the horses too...
Some of Browning's very early designs had the frame extending to the end of the slide, but the "parallel ruler" design of those guns required it, as the forward link had to be anchored to the frame.
With the advent of the barrel bushing, and the shortened dust cover, the gun could be racked by pushing it against a solid object as you describe.
It's possible only if the gun does NOT have a full-length guide rod, so alternate methods, such as hooking the rear sight, are needed, and some sell that as an advantage; with the full-length rod you won't inadvertently rack out a round by bumping the nose against a solid object.
Funny, how the "advantage" of being able to rack the slide intentionally is turned into a supposed "shortcoming".
It's also possible to rack the slide while the gun is still partially in the M1916 holster, as the gun can be rotated slightly and the nose of the slide pushed against the wood block inside, loading the gun before the draw stroke is completed.
With the advent of the barrel bushing, and the shortened dust cover, the gun could be racked by pushing it against a solid object as you describe.
It's possible only if the gun does NOT have a full-length guide rod, so alternate methods, such as hooking the rear sight, are needed, and some sell that as an advantage; with the full-length rod you won't inadvertently rack out a round by bumping the nose against a solid object.
Funny, how the "advantage" of being able to rack the slide intentionally is turned into a supposed "shortcoming".
It's also possible to rack the slide while the gun is still partially in the M1916 holster, as the gun can be rotated slightly and the nose of the slide pushed against the wood block inside, loading the gun before the draw stroke is completed.
be operated in ways the designer never thought of. Or in ways he never mentioned, so we assume he never thought of it. Lots of things are like that.
There's a difference between what the design is intended for, and what it allows for. Sometimes, this is because the designer(s) specifically thought of and provided for it, sometimes, its because the didn't, and someone else figures out a way it can be worked.
For example, (I don't know about the new cars with front wheel drive, sideways engines and computer controlled everything, but ) there is a way to push start a (pre-80s) car with a standard transmission. There is a way to do it with an automatic transmission, too but the details differ. It's not in any manual, and I highly doubt it was deliberately designed to be done. but the design allows for it.
The 1911 allows me to safely lower the hammer using only the hand holding the gun. But you won't find instructions on how to do that in any manual that I've ever seen. Certainly not in the GI instructions, or the Colt factory owner's manual.
Since Browning is long gone and can't be asked, the only thing we have to go on about what he intended his design to do, and how are in the notes and writings he left behind, which are not extensive. A lot of what "Browning intended" is inferred, and cannot be proven. Some things are supported by the evidence, some...not so much.
"Press cocking" the 1911? yeah, it can be done. (but not if the barrel is pressed). Was it an intentional design? Browning didn't say. (and your terminology threw me, for a moment. Mainspring (and cap) are the terms used in the patent, but production 1911s have always had those parts named "recoil spring" and "recoil spring plug")
It is possible that the reason the recoil spring plug is checkered so it won't slip when press cocking the gun, but I don't think its likely. I think its more likely that it is checkered (or grooved, I've seen that variant too) so that your FINGERs are less likely to slip off it during dis- and re-assembly.
It's possible that the pistol frame doesn't go all the way to the front of the slide so you can press cock the gun. It's also possible that unlike some of his earlier designs, the 1911 didn't use a front and rear barrel link, only a rear one, and since there was no front link, there was no reason to have the frame go all the way to the front to support a link that wasn't there.
We simply don't know, and Browning didn't say. (or, if he did, no one has found it in over 100 years of looking...
)One thing we do know, is the story about the thumb safety. Some details vary with the version being told but in general, it goes like this...
Browning thought the pistol was "good to go" without the thumb safety. Some of his earlier designs lack the thumb safety, but have a grip safety. Army testing by the Cavalry, with the 1910 prototype (which only had a grip safety)resulted in their demand for a safety "lock". The concern was holstering the loaded and cocked pistol with one hand.
None of the literature, period contemporary or later that I've ever seen mentions anything about LOADING the pistol one handed. Press cocking it against a saddle horn might work, but there's a risk there, of shooting oneself. or more likely the HORSE!! And the Cavalry always considers shooting one's horse, absent dire need, to be a bad thing.
The concern over holstering the gun, chamber loaded and cocked with one hand, (the other being busy with the reins) meant the hand was still in the shooting grip, and the grip safety was therefore not engaged, so anything snagging the trigger (as you try to stuff it back in the holster of a moving horse) could fire the gun.
SO, Browning added a thumb safety (referred to as the "safety lock" in GI manuals), and the gun was accepted as the 1911.
Browning, as far as we can tell, didn't write down much, if anything about his reasoning. He would tell people, but left little to nothing in writing. Browning didn't even do the drawings for his guns. He was a true 19th century genius, who would get an idea, carve it out of wood, tinker with the wood pieces until he thought it would work, then made it in metal. All the drawings used (including for patents) were made up for him, from his working prototypes, mostly by Colt or Winchester.
So, claiming what Browning "intended" is at best a guess, and at worst, claiming one's own opinion was what Browning intended.
And, how much of the design is what Browning intended, and how much is what his customer intended?
The original gun can be decocked with one hand, but you can't do it with a modern, "improved" 1911 with a beavertail.
The army ordered the gun with a short hammer spur, but the design was changed within a couple of years to a longer one for easier cocking, creating hammer bite at the same time; today, we would probably ask, why would anyone be thumb-cocking an auto pistol, but 100 years ago, virtually everyone had experience only with revolvers, and I suspect there was a lot of manual cocking and decocking, and a longer hammer spur helped.
The long hammer begat the long grip safety, and that drove the concept of the beavertail, to both prevent hammer bite and "raise the grip"; an original short spur hammer and grip safety offers a high grip, less need for a "speed bump" to ensure grip safety disengagement, and allows one-handed decocking.
Lots of unintended consequences in messing with the original design.
The original gun can be decocked with one hand, but you can't do it with a modern, "improved" 1911 with a beavertail.
The army ordered the gun with a short hammer spur, but the design was changed within a couple of years to a longer one for easier cocking, creating hammer bite at the same time; today, we would probably ask, why would anyone be thumb-cocking an auto pistol, but 100 years ago, virtually everyone had experience only with revolvers, and I suspect there was a lot of manual cocking and decocking, and a longer hammer spur helped.
The long hammer begat the long grip safety, and that drove the concept of the beavertail, to both prevent hammer bite and "raise the grip"; an original short spur hammer and grip safety offers a high grip, less need for a "speed bump" to ensure grip safety disengagement, and allows one-handed decocking.
Lots of unintended consequences in messing with the original design.
The 1911 wasn't designed with cavalry in mind at all. Cavalry troopies were a very clever bunch and found ways of doing things JM never thought about though. Starting with being able to steer the horse with the reins in one's teeth. No need to put the muzzle of a loaded pistol between your legs or against the horse's shoulders to chamber a round.
The recoil spring cap is serrated so your finger doesn't slip off and send the cap into the Twilight Zone. Nothing to do with Cavalry.
"...(pre-80s) car with a standard transmission..." Any vehicle with a proper standard transmission can be bump started. Doing it with a girly automatic is very hard on said girly transmission.
The recoil spring cap is serrated so your finger doesn't slip off and send the cap into the Twilight Zone. Nothing to do with Cavalry.
"...(pre-80s) car with a standard transmission..." Any vehicle with a proper standard transmission can be bump started. Doing it with a girly automatic is very hard on said girly transmission.
Bill DeShivs
New member
Of course the 1911 was designed for cavalry.
Do you make stuff up as you go along??
Do you make stuff up as you go along??
Yeah, but virtually all the pistols he designed prior to the HP did have grip safeties; the HP was designed (completed by Saive) to meet a French requirement, so, just as a lot of 1911 features are what the U.S. army wanted, you could blame the French for some of what you see on the HP.
It is, however, covered in the 1910 patents.
Heretofore in the pistols of this class,
when the hammer was cocked ready for firing,
and it became necessary to lower the hammer
to the safety position without allowing it to
touch the firing-pin, it required both hands
of the user to accomplish this act, because
the trigger had to be pulled with the first
finger of the right hand to release the hammer
and the grip-lever had simultaneously
to be pressed into the grip to release the
trigger for operation, to do this required
the keeping of the thumb of the right hand
in a horizontal position on the left side of
the grip.
Therefore it was impracticable
to also extend the thumb of the right hand,
while this hand pressed in the grip-lever
and pulled the trigger, upward so as to rest
upon the thumb-piece of the hammer and,
thus controlling the hammer, to gently lower
the same and restrain it from falling and
from striking the firing-pin, because any
attempt to do this would result in loosening
the necessary hold upon the grip-lever. Consequently
the lowering of the hammer had
to be performed by the other hand, this is
a serious drawback in a military arm, as a
soldier and especially a mounted soldier does
not in action have both hands free for such
use.
To overcome this difficulty, I have provided
the grip-lever, w with a projecting nose in rear ]
of its pivot, which stands closely in rear of, and
below the hammer when
cocked, and the hammer is so fitted that it
may be drawn rearward somewhat farther
than to its cocked position.
When the hammer
is drawn fully back it strikes the nose and,
by pressing the same downward, it
causes the grip-lever to turn on its pivot
forcing the lower portion into the grip,
thereby releasing the trigger.
By this arrangement
the thumb of the hand grasping
the grip needs not to be kept at the side of
the grip for pressing in the grip-lever, but
the thumb may be applied to the hammer
and through the same operate the grip-lever
to release the trigger,
*******************
Note that the "safety position" described by Browning must, by description, be the half cock position.
To wit:
And it became necessary to lower the hammer to the safety position without touching the firing pin.
********************
Of course, the addition of the manual safety made the half cock safety obsolete, but the captive half cock remained a part of the design until Colt turned it into a flat shelf in the Series 80s.
Last edited:
Double Naught Spy
New member
The grip safety may not have been Browning's idea. IIRC correctly, the military made something like 42 suggested changes to the original submitted design during the years of testing. However, that the Browning Hi-Power doesn't have one isn't proof of it being his idea or not. Colt held many of the rights to the 1911, not Browning. So when Browning started his HI-Power, there were features he could not incorporate without buying or leasing back the rights, assuming he wanted to use them.
Add to this, that Browning died while the pistol was still in early prototype form, and it was finished by the Belgians (headed by a fellow who's name I always mangle, and so will leave out..
), and wound up being quite a bit different than the gun was when Browning passed away.Rumor has it that the magazine disconnect was added to the design by the Belgians at the request of the French, who, typically, asked for a feature, then refused to buy it later, even though their request was met....
I'm sure cavalry troops found a lot of "shortcuts" in handling the 1911 while on horseback. The official War Department 1912 manual (revised in 1914) taught them to load by simply drawing the slide to the rear and releasing it. https://archive.org/details/descriptionofaut00unitrich/page/14
Two points that come up often:
1. When shot to slide-lock, the manual said to release the slide catch with no mention of sling-shotting the gun. pp. 15-16
2. Regarding method of carrying:"Do not carry the pistol in the holster with the hammer cocked and safety lock on, except in an emergency." p. 16.
Cocked and locked carry was championed by Col. Cooper. I believe it to be a safe method of carry and is how I carry.
Two points that come up often:
1. When shot to slide-lock, the manual said to release the slide catch with no mention of sling-shotting the gun. pp. 15-16
2. Regarding method of carrying:"Do not carry the pistol in the holster with the hammer cocked and safety lock on, except in an emergency." p. 16.
Cocked and locked carry was championed by Col. Cooper. I believe it to be a safe method of carry and is how I carry.
Bottom Gun
New member
I heard from a trusted source that the 1911 was designed to be cocked that way so the shooter would not have to relinquish his grip on his smart phone.
Any idea if the patent descriptions were done by Browning, or if those were done by someone else?
I reading part of the 984,519 1911 patent earlier today and assumed he had written it, but I suppose it's just as likely written by someone else.
bedbugbilly
New member
I have no dog in this dog walk but will just add some things . . .
The 1911 was adopted when? Oh, yea . . . 1911. It saw use along the Mexican border by cavalry units in the disturbance with Pancho Villa . . . but . . . by the time 1817 rolled around and we entered the wear, while there were certainly cavalry regiments, they had no place on the battlefield . . . no match for machine gun fire or for charges across no man's land filled with shell craters, barbed wire, etc. Horses were used extensively for drawing artillery as well as wagons. I knew and interviewed quite a few World War I veterans when I was in high school - infantry, artillery, one pilot and an officer in the Veterinary Corps. Several of them showed me the 1911s they had carried in France and brought home. I had an interest as I had been given a beautiful 1911A1 Colt that had been brought back by a WWII Navy Pilot. The WW I vets that carried, to a man, said that in reserve and behind the lines, they carried an empty chamber. When they went to the front, they carried what we would call cocked and locked. Those that I knew who had actually gone on trench raids said they never carried a firearm but rather trench knives, clubs, etc. as they crawled in darkness across no man's land to get prisoners for intel - and one described a raid whee they were half way to the Geran trenches when a flare went up, he was in the lead and found himself face to face with a German leading a raiding party to their trenches. He used his knife on the German and those behind him and behind the German scattered to the four winds to shell craters when machine gun fire raked over them. When the flare died out - they all made their way back to their respective trenches. None of the Germans were carrying firearms while going on their raid either.
The officer in the Veterinary Corps said pretty much the same thing. In reserve, none in the chamber. Near the front, cocked and locked. In the flap holster it was not an issue carrying that way nor would it be on horseback. I'm thinking that there may have been a few who tried cocking the way the OP describes, but why? I wouldn't be necessary. Plus the fact. if there was any danger of shooting the horse, there would have been hell to pay for sure. Horses in France were in short supply and I know of one instance when men in the 329th Field Artillery tore down corrugated sheet metal horse sheds to build shelters for men suffering with influenza who had no shelter other than a shelter half - this was shortly after the Armistice. When their Colonel, Colonel Hopkins found out about it, he called the men in to formation, even those that were sick and made them stand in formation in freezing sleet while he "dressed them down" for tearing the horse shelters down to make shelters for th sick. His final remark to them was . . . "we can replace men, we can't replace horses!". I knew three veterans of the 328th F.A. - each told me this story and said that if the Armistice hadn't held and fighting started up again, Hopkins would not return from the front. I have a feeling that all it would have taken was one accidental discharge in to the back of a horse and the practice of loading the chamber that way would have been strictly forbidden with threats of court martial.
The 1911 was adopted when? Oh, yea . . . 1911. It saw use along the Mexican border by cavalry units in the disturbance with Pancho Villa . . . but . . . by the time 1817 rolled around and we entered the wear, while there were certainly cavalry regiments, they had no place on the battlefield . . . no match for machine gun fire or for charges across no man's land filled with shell craters, barbed wire, etc. Horses were used extensively for drawing artillery as well as wagons. I knew and interviewed quite a few World War I veterans when I was in high school - infantry, artillery, one pilot and an officer in the Veterinary Corps. Several of them showed me the 1911s they had carried in France and brought home. I had an interest as I had been given a beautiful 1911A1 Colt that had been brought back by a WWII Navy Pilot. The WW I vets that carried, to a man, said that in reserve and behind the lines, they carried an empty chamber. When they went to the front, they carried what we would call cocked and locked. Those that I knew who had actually gone on trench raids said they never carried a firearm but rather trench knives, clubs, etc. as they crawled in darkness across no man's land to get prisoners for intel - and one described a raid whee they were half way to the Geran trenches when a flare went up, he was in the lead and found himself face to face with a German leading a raiding party to their trenches. He used his knife on the German and those behind him and behind the German scattered to the four winds to shell craters when machine gun fire raked over them. When the flare died out - they all made their way back to their respective trenches. None of the Germans were carrying firearms while going on their raid either.
The officer in the Veterinary Corps said pretty much the same thing. In reserve, none in the chamber. Near the front, cocked and locked. In the flap holster it was not an issue carrying that way nor would it be on horseback. I'm thinking that there may have been a few who tried cocking the way the OP describes, but why? I wouldn't be necessary. Plus the fact. if there was any danger of shooting the horse, there would have been hell to pay for sure. Horses in France were in short supply and I know of one instance when men in the 329th Field Artillery tore down corrugated sheet metal horse sheds to build shelters for men suffering with influenza who had no shelter other than a shelter half - this was shortly after the Armistice. When their Colonel, Colonel Hopkins found out about it, he called the men in to formation, even those that were sick and made them stand in formation in freezing sleet while he "dressed them down" for tearing the horse shelters down to make shelters for th sick. His final remark to them was . . . "we can replace men, we can't replace horses!". I knew three veterans of the 328th F.A. - each told me this story and said that if the Armistice hadn't held and fighting started up again, Hopkins would not return from the front. I have a feeling that all it would have taken was one accidental discharge in to the back of a horse and the practice of loading the chamber that way would have been strictly forbidden with threats of court martial.
Another thing nobody has touched on yet- Quite a great number of things can be accomplished while astride a horse, including management of weapons. As far as I am aware, keeping the reins exclusively at 10 and 2 was not something that was enforced.
I think the Army Field Manual (FM 23-25?) of 1940 was the last one to include Tasks, Conditions, and Standards for mounted 1911 training. I don't have my copy handy, but it makes for great reading.
I think the Army Field Manual (FM 23-25?) of 1940 was the last one to include Tasks, Conditions, and Standards for mounted 1911 training. I don't have my copy handy, but it makes for great reading.