1911 sans safety?

[MythBuster]

Thank you Slamfire. I get so tired of hearing the 100% BS myth that JMB "intended" his first design without the thumb safety to be carried "cocked and unlocked".

The 1911 pistol has more than it's share of myths and that is one of them.

The other common one is that a blow to the hammer will cause the pistol to fire if it is carried on condition two. That is BS.

Another one I see and hear is about the gun firing if it is dropped on the muzzle. They claim this will happen in condition two but not in condition one.

More BS. It CAN happen in rare cases BUT it can happen in both condition one and two and even on halfcock.

 

[drail]

When dropped and landing on the muzzle a 1911 "can" fire even if there is no hammer in the gun. Many years ago I read an article discussing the development of the Series 80 firing pin safety and it stated that Colt did a lot of testing before they decied to make the change. One of the tests involved dropping a loaded 1911 mounted in a fixture that guided the gun on wires to hold it muzzle down while it fell onto concrete. They claimed that it had to be dropped from a height of 60 feet to fire from just the inertial movement of the firing pin. They decided to commit to the firing pin safety anyway. Seems like a waste to me but this was about the same time that Ruger had a bunch of lawsuits pending from stupid people that managed to shoot themselves with the original 3 screw Blackhawk. Lose a couple of lawsuits like those and your company could go tango uniform in a hurry. First thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.

 

[Slamfire]

They claimed that it had to be dropped from a height of 60 feet to fire from just the inertial movement of the firing pin. They decided to commit to the firing pin safety anyway. Seems like a waste to me but this was about the same time that Ruger had a bunch of lawsuits pending from stupid people that managed to shoot themselves with the original 3 screw Blackhawk. Lose a couple of lawsuits like those and your company could go tango uniform in a hurry. First thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.

I am certain someone in high school could calculate the velocity after a 60 foot drop. That is an incredible drop. For a M1911 firing pin to touch the primer it has to travel a good distance and against the resistance of the firing pin spring. I believe it would take a heck of an impact to get the thing to slamfire.

We will never know much if anything about the accidental discharges the military had with the M1911 as the military does not talk about accidental discharges and I am certain all the paper records on the M1911 were burned long ago.


Still, the P38 has a firing pin block. I don’t know the reasons, but I really doubt the Germans would have put it in their 1938 design because of product liability concerns.


I can’t think of a modern semi auto pistol design that does not have a firing pin block.

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.

You look at your book "The Government Models" by Goddard, you will see a M1909 on which the thumb safety made its first appearance. Neither the grip safety or the thumb safety were on the M1905. There are later models with grip safeties but it was in 1910 that John Browning installed the thumb safety.

This image is from the 1913 firing manual, the document writers must have had access to a M1907 prototype as you see M1907 features though the grip angle is different from Goddard's examples. Notice, no thumb safety.

I highly suspect you carried your M1905 with one in the chamber and hammer down. It would have been very slow to rack the slide and it would have required a Cavalry Trooper to drop the reins. Makes a lot more sense to believe John Browning's early designs were thumb cocked on presentation.

 

[gyvel]

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?!

Isn't this how the Sauer 38h worked?

 

[Jim Watson]

The Sauer 38H and the H&K P9S have cocking/decocking levers.
Having seen a 38H, the first time I handled a Sig-Sauer P220 it confused the dickens out of me because I could not cock it with the side lever.

But it takes a good deal of effort on the side levers to cock the concealed hammers on those guns. I'd rather just flip off a safety or even drag through a double action trigger than heave on the cocking lever and then try to get back to a firing grip.


One of the current crop of gunfighting trainers did his own drop tests and concluded that it did not take much of a fall at all to pop a cap in a real 1911 without all those "modern" firing pin obstructions and stuff. He was sure to drop them on the muzzle onto a concrete floor, kind of like the California payola "test."
I did my own drop tests a number of years ago and got no discharges from a fall of six feet onto a vinyl-over-wood kitchen floor in various conditions of readiness and orientation.


I recall an article about the development of the P38. There was a prototype with the most foolproof internal safety ever made, no way for the gun to fire except by pulling the trigger and if anything stuck or broke even that would not do it. The General Staff rejected it as TOO safe. Great for preventing ADs, but the brass decided that a military weapon should fail in the fire position so that the officer would not be disarmed by a mechanical fault.
The production P38s were simpler, cheaper, and had some slight risk of AD if mistreated or sabotaged, but were going to shoot when wanted.

 

[Nakanokalronin]

The only extended control I like on my 1911s is the thumb safety. I shoot thumbs forward with my right hand thumb on top of the safety. I have never had any of my extended thumb safeties disengage on their own when carried in a variety of holster options including shoulder, IWB, OWB, vest/chest rig, etc.

Nothing wrong with beavertails for those that get hammer bite and like a nice high hold. The BT also helps establish recoil better than the small original type.

I also need a long trigger since I have long fingers. I also use flat MSHs since they make the 1911 platform point more naturally for me.

I think the mechanical aspect of the 1911s is perfect and disengaging original safeties is taking away from the original platform. Those firing pin safeties where an add-on that was retro fitted to work on an existing platform, but if someone wants to tailor a 1911 with extended parts or different configurations to their needs/wants then there's nothing wrong with that. I'm not looking at this from a 1911 purist type of view, but a mechanical type of view. I think many people believe users of the 1911 like it because of some story, history or fascination but there are many like myself that find it the perfect pistol for us, just because it is.

 

[drail]

The more complicated a mechanical device is made the more opportunities are available to Murphy to stop it up at the worst possible time. K.I.S.S. - keep it simple stupid. No mechanical device will ever prevent poorly trained people from doing stupid stuff. The 1911 is an example of absolutely brilliant design. The problem comes when it (or any firearm) is sold or issued to people that have little or no training on how it works and how to use it. This is where we are now. If anyone can walk into a gun shop and buy a gun (and they absolutely should have the right) and walk out and carry it with no knowledge of proper safe handling you will have serious problems. The solution is not more mechanical safeties. The Plaxico incident and the DEA agent come to mind. People who do stupid things with Glocks would do the same stupid things with any other handgun. People need training and awareness of the consequences of disregarding the rules. But then I guess we would put a lot of lawyers out of work.

 

[44 AMP]

Still, the P38 has a firing pin block. I don’t know the reasons, but I really doubt the Germans would have put it in their 1938 design because of product liability concerns

Might it be that they put one in because the P.38 drops the hammer on the firing pin when you apply the safety?

Walthers are notorious for firing when the safety is applied, if just the "right" things go wrong.

The Browning prototypes, with a grip safety, but no thumb safety (aka safety lock) supports the story that it was added later, at the request of the govt (Cavalry). Unruly horses are a problem, and so is returning a cocked pistol to the holster, mounted or not.

Lowering the hammer on a 1911 with only one hand (the other holding the reins) is a tricky and not safe maneuver. Holstering the cocked gun (with the hand holding it also depressing the grip safety) is likewise an unsafe practice.

Putting on the safety lock allows you to do it safely.

 

[divil]

Something I find strange about the idea of carrying a 1911 with the hammer down: wouldn't that have been a step backwards for the army? The 1911 was replacing a double-action revolver which could be carried ready-to-fire. So why would they accept a replacement that required an extra manual step before it could be fired?

 

[jason_iowa]

I hate safteys. The only one I need is between my ears. I hate loaded indicator mechanics as well.

 

[Shadi Khalil]

I personally don't like manual safety. For the short time I carried a 1911, I had more than one occasion where I found my safety disengaged when I took the gun off for the day. I much prefer a decocker, glock type or DAO.

 

[John Eastwood]

''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?''

I like this...

 

[BlueTrain]

Well, I personally feel that the hammer on a Colt Government model is very easy to cock with the thumb, although I have elaborated on the curious abilities of my thumb in other posts, this being the same thumb that has trouble with thumb safeties. I have no problem with a grip safety either, although I understand some folks do. That might also be related to the thumb, too. I will freely admit that lowering the hammer on a live round take great care, although it shouldn't be something that would ever need to be done in a hurry.

I also have a 1917 army manual (Manual for Non-commissioned Officers and Privates Infantry) that states on page 203 to chamber a round and lower the hammer, detailed instructions for that being given. It also states never to place the pistol in the holster until the hammer is fully down. But for revolvers, it instructs to lower the hammer on an empty chamber! I assume the .38 Army revolvers did not have the positive safety lock. The Soldier's Handbook of 1941, FM-21-100, describes in detail how to disassemble the pistol, clean it and check the functioning but doesn't mention anything about how to carry it (loaded) in the field. However, it lists four safety devices. In the very next section (on page 44), it states "All weapons used in the Army are design to kill." This should answer any question about any nonsense about merely wounding the enemy to cause greater inconvenience. I have no later manual, so it may be possible this is no longer true.

I would further state that cocking the hammer is easier with some holsters than others, which might make a difference. And none of this applies to a Commander model (or a Browning H-P with the same round hammer). The style of the hammer is just all wrong for thumb use. But chambering a round isn't all that difficult with a Colt. I don't understand the difficulty people seem to have with it. True, there are other automatics that I find very, very difficult but not Colts. Glocks are even easier. But all my experiences were with my hands (the same ones that have those problematic thumbs), so that needs to be taken into account. But some people have problems with double action triggers on an automatic, too.

I always like to end by mentioning that I'm comfortable with "cocked and locked," even if Colt isn't and have carried a Commander that way "for emergency use," as the manual puts it. But I like the way Fairbairn put it: you may carry your gun however you wish if you allow me the courtesy to do the same.

 

[MythBuster]

Posted by Slamfire,

"I can’t think of a modern semi auto pistol design that does not have a firing pin block."

There is one for sure. The M series Steyr.

 

[manta49]

People have shot them selves while putting clocks in a holster so how safe is the trigger safety.

 

[MythBuster]

What time is it?

 

[44 AMP]

Something I find strange about the idea of carrying a 1911 with the hammer down: wouldn't that have been a step backwards for the army? The 1911 was replacing a double-action revolver which could be carried ready-to-fire. So why would they accept a replacement that required an extra manual step before it could be fired?

The Army wasn't looking at it that way. And I don't believe that they really taught or expected DA shooting (outside of point blank emergency) when they went to the .38 Colt. Remember the previous Army pistols all had to be manually cocked, for each shot.

What the Army was focusing on was getting back to a .45 caliber round because the .38 they had was not doing the job well enough. And they had lots of men who were used to cocking a pistol to shoot it. With the new automatic, you only had to cock it once, not for each shot.

its difficult to realize, today, because we have developed a long history of using (and teaching) the DA revolver in DA mode for defense, but this wasn't always the case. For a long time the general mode of thinking was that a DA revolver was to be cocked and fired single action (for accuracy) and the DA function was a point blank emergency use feature.

Generations of shooters have proven otherwise, that DA shooting can be accurate and useful but in the early years of the 20th century single action shooting was considered to be prefered. And in the Army, (as anyone who has ever served can tell you) reality and best practice is what the Army says it is. There is a reason SOP is to carry the gun hammer down, chamber empty. IT has nothing to do with safety for the individual carrying the gun, it has to do with safety for the Army, and bystanders.

Remember that the Army takes young men, gives them a few weeks of concentrated training (only a small part of which is safe firearms handling), and then arms them. General ignorance and boyish enthusiam lead to mishaps. A regulation requiring chamber empty holster carry cuts down on this, for the good of the service. The good of the individual is not a consideration.

Taking the Army's rules as the "right" way to carry the gun is, in my opinion, foolish. The right way is whatever is safe, and serves your needs best, as an individual.

The whole "cocked and locked" phobia is a red herring. Cocked and locked in a gun where you can't see the hammer never seems to bother people.

and while I'm at it, here's another opinion...there is NO safety on a GLock. That little tab isn't a safety, it's a trigger activation switch!

 

[mkk41]

The grip safety was added to the .45cal 1905 model to become the 1907. There were 200 made for the Marine Corps. The 1910 had no thumb safety. It was added by Colt at the insistance of Ordnance and Cavalry officers to become the pistol adopted in 1911.

1905

1907

1910

 

[BlueTrain]

You are quite correct, 44AMP, that single action revolver shooting was considered preferable, even progressive, at one time. By this, I mean shooting a double-action revolver by cocking the hammer each time. I'm not sure where the practice originated, probably on the target range. The K-38 was at one time a popular police weapon and it lends itself very well to that mode of shooting. It even had a wide hammer to aid in cocking. There was even a single-action only K-38. I wonder if the movies and television had any influence on that? I do know that people have slightly mistaken ideas of both the capabilities of firearms (not just handguns) and of the circumstances in which they might be used. Some believe that you will have to outdraw the other guy. At any rate, if you've used one of the older Colt revolvers, you might be forgiven for thinking you can shoot better by cocking the hammer first. But at the same time, there were several models of double-action only revolvers always available and that method even pre-dates the first Colt.

If you can describe it, there's probably already someone who favors either that carry method or that method of shooting. There have been fads to pin down the thumb safety or the grip safety on Colt automatics. There are those on the other hand who believe in them so much they replace the standard safeties with oversized versions, the better to use them. I have even heard that some even do something or other with the sights, the better to see them, but I have trouble believing that.

 

[1911Tuner]

Safety

The grip safety was in place as an add-on in 1905, and incorporated into the design in 1907 on Colt's contract pistols. It wasn't Browning's idea. It was Georg Luger's. The US Army saw it on the P-03 and asked Colt for one.

The thumb safety was added on request by the US Cavalry for the reasons stated earlier. It wasn't designed to be carried cocked and locked, and nobody intended for it to be. It can be carried cocked and locked, but it wasn't designed specifically to be.

The original half-cock is a de facto safety and is referred to as the "Safety Position" by Browning in the 1910 patents, along with instructions for lowering it to that position with one hand...which came about from the redesign of the hammer and grip safety spur.

The pistol pictured below is one of two in existence...left from the original eight prototypes that were first submitted for testing. The Ordnance Board returned them with a request for a "Slide locking manual safety" and six were retrofitted with them..resubmitted and accepted...and the rest is history.

1910 Colt photo courtesy of Charles W. Clawson.