1911 sans safety?

D

divil

New member
The grip safety only blocks the trigger. That's all it does. The thumb safety locks the sear and hammer.
Click to expand...

This just made me think of a new idea...well new to me anyway. From the point of view of design, why go to the trouble of having the hammer cocked, only to use another mechanism to block it again...stay with me here: a lot of people including me don't like the inconsistency of the DA/SA guns like Sigs etc....so why isn't there a gun with a cocker, instead of a decocker, and no safety?!

Think about it: the hammer on a 1911 is in too awkward a position to cock it easily as you bring gun to bear. You have to compromise your grip or use the other hand. But the thumb has plenty of strength for the job, so a cocking lever that sweeps downwards just like a thumb safety could be used to cock the hammer.

That way you have a consistent, SA-only trigger with no chance of the gun going off acidentally, and yet it would be as quick to bring into action as a cocked-and-locked 1911. Has anyone ever designed something like this?
 
N

Nathan

New member
I would get a 1911 series 80 and carry safety off. That still has more safety than a Glock. BTW, I consider this dangerous as hell!
 
R

RickB

New member
Cylinder & Slide markets a kit that allows the 1911 to be carried with the internal mechanism cocked, but the external hammer spur lowered against the firing pin. When the thumb safety is swept down, the hammer spur snaps to full-cock, making the gun ready to fire. It really mostly addresses the appearance of a cocked hammer while in ready condition, which some think important.
Years ago, a company called Caravelle (sp?) made a squeeze-cocking conversion for the 1911. It replaced the grip safety and mainspring housing, and cocked the hammer when the gun was grasped in a firing grip.
 
M

Merad

New member
Think about it: the hammer on a 1911 is in too awkward a position to cock it easily as you bring gun to bear. You have to compromise your grip or use the other hand. But the thumb has plenty of strength for the job, so a cocking lever that sweeps downwards just like a thumb safety could be used to cock the hammer.

That way you have a consistent, SA-only trigger with no chance of the gun going off acidentally, and yet it would be as quick to bring into action as a cocked-and-locked 1911. Has anyone ever designed something like this?
Click to expand...

Only problem is, if you are going to need both a "cocker" and a decocker.

At least, I personally don't want to try manually thumbing down the hammer on a live round in a semi-auto pistol....
 
D

divil

New member
Only problem is, if you are going to need both a "cocker" and a decocker.
Click to expand...

Nah just make it a rule that if you draw this gun, you have to shoot.

Joking aside though, it's a good point. Perhaps the magic lever could be both a cocker and a decocker...
 
A

Auto426

New member
The main draw of the 1911 for many is the trigger. Putting some sort of squishy two piece trigger would basically defeat the main reason why most people love the gun.

It's not impossible to adjust to a thumb safety equipped gun. You just have to build muscle memory for, the same way you do with a lot of things in your life. I'm sure most of us get into our vehicles and put on our seat belts or use our key ring remotes to lock our car doors after we exit without even thing about it. Drawing a 1911 and flipping off the safety is pretty much the same thing.
 
L

lee n. field

New member
so why isn't there a gun with a cocker, instead of a decocker, and no safety?!
Click to expand...

H-und-K P7.

Cylinder & Slide markets a kit that allows the 1911 to be carried with the internal mechanism cocked, but the external hammer spur lowered against the firing pin.
Click to expand...

Daewoo autopistols had something similar.

There are a lot of things you can get on a gun or put on a gun... but it won't be a 1911 any more.
Click to expand...

that.
 
H

Hunter Customs

New member
07232008b.jpg



All this babble about the safties on a 1911 pistol sounds like the old find a solution to a problem that don't exist.
There's nothing wrong with the design of the 1911 as is, especially the thumb safety.

The only problems that plaque the 1911 today is cheap parts, oversized controls that's not needed and the mass production of gun's being manufatured out of spec.

Notice the thumb safety on the gun in the picture, I fabricated it to be as close to the original 1911 style safety as possible.
I prefer this style of safety over the A-1 style of safety, as I can engage the 1911 style paddle faster without missing then I can an A-1 safety.

I carry cocked and locked, I can draw this gun from my waist band or holster and never miss disengaging the thumb safety.
I've also never had this thumb safety disengage accidently like thumb safeties with oversized paddles will do.

Rather then changing the design I would prefer the companies that wish to manufacture 1911 guns do so with top shelf parts, guns that are in spec and parts as close to the originals as possible.

Best Regards
Bob Hunter
www.huntercustoms.com
 
B

BlueTrain

New member
I always hesitate to suggest what Browning thought, having no personal knowledge of what that might have been but judging from the variety of his successful designs, I doubt he was particularly dogmatic about any particular feature. But I don't think he designed revolvers.

The first few models of .45 automatics had neither thumb safeties or grip safeties. Some of the .38 automatics had a curious safety that incorporated the rear sight, except that design was dropped and anyone that wanted could have their pistol reworked without that function. One should also remember that by the time the 1910 model showed up, automatic pistols were very, very new and there was none of this "the way it's always been done" nonsense. Almost everything on anyone's design was something new. Yet the new automatics were hugely successful and had even been tried out under field combat conditions overseas by 1900. That was not called the progressive era for nothing, I suppose.

I have long believed that it was considered a satisfactory arrangement to carry a Colt (they were all Colts then) with the hammer down on a loaded chamber, although others though differently. I have never found it a difficult thing to cock one without any more fumbling than flicking off the thumb safety but I've mentioned before that I'm probably all fingers when it comes to thumb safeties. I really don't understand that either, since I think it's the same thumb I use to cock the hammer. I will admit that lowering the hammer takes care.

I have also mentioned my admiration of the Commander model and unfortunately the hammer design on that model does not lend itself to either easy cocking or safe de-cocking, in my own experience and opinion, again using the same thumb. I never thought to try it with a different one.
 
S

Slamfire

New member
I have long believed that it was considered a satisfactory arrangement to carry a Colt (they were all Colts then) with the hammer down on a loaded chamber, although others though differently. I have never found it a difficult thing to cock one without any more fumbling than flicking off the thumb safety but I've mentioned before that I'm probably all fingers when it comes to thumb safeties. I really don't understand that either, since I think it's the same thumb I use to cock the hammer. I will admit that lowering the hammer takes care.
Click to expand...

I have a 1913 small arms manual, written by people who were around when the M1911 was in development.

They carried the M1911 with a round in the chamber and the hammer down in the flap holster. The manual is very insistent on carrying with the hammer down. In the flap holster.

This would have been totally natural to troops familiar to the Colt SAA. You unholstered your pistol and thumb cocked it.

Early M1911's had wide hammer spurs and the grip safety was out of the way. Modern beavertails make thumb cocking just about impossible with the firing hand.

The thumb safety was put there at the insistence of the Cavalry who wanted a way to make the pistol safe with one hand. They wanted it in case of an "unruly horse".

People today don't ride horses like they used to, but documents of the period indicate a high number of accidental discharges with revolvers due to jumpy horses.

I think enough accidental discharges happened by guys lowering the hammer and losing it, that by the time you get to WWII, you put the thumb safety on before putting the pistol in your flap holster.

The Cooperites all refer to the WWII manuals in their claims that John Browning designed the M1911 to be carried cocked and locked. Not so.

SmallArmsManual1913Coverpage.jpg


I have never felt comfortable carrying cocked and locked, especially after having the thumb safety bumped off. This has happened to more people than just me.

The thumb safety can also be bumped "on" when you want it "off". I remember an article by Clint Smith where at his facility, Nationally ranked shooters have accidentally bumped their safeties "on" when going through the combat courses.

I accidently bumped a Les Baer safety on. The safety was real easy to move, the gun recoiled more than I expected, and the next round would not go off. Turned out I bumped the safety on. That was a surprise and I was glad I was only paper punching.

So, not only do I not like carrying cocked and unlocked, I don't think highly of thumb safeties as they can be "off" when you want them "on", and "on" when you want them "off".
 
R

RickB

New member
That is not a picture of a M1911, so could not be the "original design". Every single one of the more than three million M1911 and M1911A1 pistols has a thumb safety.
 
D

drail

Moderator
I have a framed photograph of John Browning's personal prototype of the 1911 that was sold at an auction for six figures. It was built in 1910. It has no thumb safety just like the photo above. It does have a grip safety. The Army Ordnance Board requested the thumb safety and John Browning just whipped one up and stuck it on. He personally felt it was unnecessary. The pistol was adopted by the Army in 1911. There was also a Model 1910 that was tested but rejected by the Army Ordnance Board. It also has no thumb safety. It was very close to the final design that passed the Army trials. I believe the museum photo above is one of the original prototype 1911s built in 1910 since it has no finish applied. That gun may have been used in the Army trials.
 
Last edited:
W

WIN71

New member
Thanks drail

I failed in my wording.
I was trying to show the original JMB design sans thumb safety for clarification on the thumb/grip safety post earlier. I did not intend it to depict the final accepted version of the commonly known 1911 0r 1911a1.
 
J

Jim Watson

New member
Mr Browning was not an ivory tower philosopher, he was in the business of designing guns for the customer, in this case, the Army via Colt.
The Army wanted a .45, the Army wanted a grip safety, the Army wanted more strength, the Army wanted a thumb safety. Browing and Colt responded to every new requirement with a new feature, because it would sell guns, not because of any tactical theory or hypothetical vision.
 
C

C0untZer0

Moderator
I saw a YouTube video where a gun reviewer for a gun magazine (not just some jackass like Nut n' Fancy) said that Springfield had just come out with a thumb safety for the XDM in 45. I went to Springfield's website and could not find it (cuz it didn't exist...).
 
C

C0untZer0

Moderator
The HK P7M8 had a unique and very safe system. You cocked the pistol just by gripping it - but it had to be done on purpose. It had enough pressure that you couldn't cock it accidentally.

The front strap / cocker then also acts like a grip safety - in that it is impossible for the gun to be fired without someone actually holding it.
 
S

scottl

New member
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top