How do you carry your 1911?
- Thread starter Gonzo_308
- Start date
swampgator
New member
Condition 1.
Always.
Always.
Jamie Young
New member
When I first got mine I was a scaredy cat and didn't keep a bullet in the chamber (first handgun I ever owned). I carried it hiking for awhile like that and after shooting it for a couple weeks straight I stopped wussing out and carried it COCKED AND LOCKED with 230gr ball in the chamber. After I heard about all the accidental shootings with Glocks I realized My Colt was a safer gun to carry.
Cond 2 ... for now. Just not comfortable yet with Cond 1 ... worried about the ambi-safety getting "bumped" off.
The only thing bad about Cond 2 (aside from being slower from holster to BG) is decocking a 1911. However, again, for now, I feel a lot safer decocking my 1911 instead of carrying Cond 1. Having said that, I would be very hesitant to suggesting Cond 2, for a 1911, to anyone else for fear that they may "mess" up their hand trying to decock it.
I certainly don't suggest that Cond 2 is better than Cond 1. Cond 1 is faster, and, very safe. However, if one is comfortable with decocking a 1911, I don't see that Cond 2 (aside from being a little slower) is such a terrible thing. The bottom line is, particularly with an ambi-safety, how comfortable are you with cocked-n-unlocked? I feel that a cocked-n-unlocked 1911, in a holster, is still pretty safe, but, I'm not ready to carry that way yet ... especially by accident.
There is a very good chance that, someday, I will be fine with Cond 1. Until then, I expect, at least, the same level of respect one would afford a stray dog.
I wonder what JMB's position was on the topic when he designed the first ancestor of the 1911 with no grip safety or thumb safety? I would guess Cond 2 or 3 ... but, that's just a guess.
The only thing bad about Cond 2 (aside from being slower from holster to BG) is decocking a 1911. However, again, for now, I feel a lot safer decocking my 1911 instead of carrying Cond 1. Having said that, I would be very hesitant to suggesting Cond 2, for a 1911, to anyone else for fear that they may "mess" up their hand trying to decock it.
I certainly don't suggest that Cond 2 is better than Cond 1. Cond 1 is faster, and, very safe. However, if one is comfortable with decocking a 1911, I don't see that Cond 2 (aside from being a little slower) is such a terrible thing. The bottom line is, particularly with an ambi-safety, how comfortable are you with cocked-n-unlocked? I feel that a cocked-n-unlocked 1911, in a holster, is still pretty safe, but, I'm not ready to carry that way yet ... especially by accident.
There is a very good chance that, someday, I will be fine with Cond 1. Until then, I expect, at least, the same level of respect one would afford a stray dog.
I wonder what JMB's position was on the topic when he designed the first ancestor of the 1911 with no grip safety or thumb safety?
I would guess Cond 2 or 3 ... but, that's just a guess.Double Naught Spy
New member
Duece you should really consider NOT carrying in Condition 2. It is NOT a good idea and it is NOT safer than Condition 1.
As far as what JMB thoughts on the 1905 (1911 ancestor) version, it is not relevant. You do have a 1911 and it does have the thumb and grip safeties. I see no reason to believe that JMB ever really considered the 1905 as the finished product without safeties. It was simply a prototype where he was working on making a reliable shooting gun first to meet the miltary's needs. Adding the safeties later was no big deal, but developing a reliable gun was. Besides, look at his other single action guns. They have safeties.
As far as what JMB thoughts on the 1905 (1911 ancestor) version, it is not relevant. You do have a 1911 and it does have the thumb and grip safeties. I see no reason to believe that JMB ever really considered the 1905 as the finished product without safeties. It was simply a prototype where he was working on making a reliable shooting gun first to meet the miltary's needs. Adding the safeties later was no big deal, but developing a reliable gun was. Besides, look at his other single action guns. They have safeties.
Interesting opinion DNS.
Aside from decocking, once in the holster, in what way is Cond 1 safer than Cond 2 ... that's not to say that Cond 2 IS safer ... I'm just curious?
Exactly, in what way, is it NOT a good idea to carry Cond 2?
And, I see no reason to believe that JMB would submit a pistol to the U.S. Army for acceptance without manual safeties unless he thought that was acceptable. I'm not trying to suggest that JMB intended the 1905 to be carried Cond 2 ... I was only trying to suggest that, perhaps, JMB didn't really consider the carry condition to be an issue, and, at the least, did not design the gun with the intention of cocked-n-locked as he did not design the "lock" into it until the Army came back to him and said they wanted one. In any event, as we have people insisting that Cond 1 is "the only way" to carry a 1911, it seems to me that the thoughts of the guy who actually designed the thing ARE relevant. Of course, at this point, we're just playing a guessing-game, but, if, at one time, Cond 2 was acceptable, how does the introduction of manual safeties make it unacceptable? Or would you suggest that without any manual safeties, that Cond 2 would still be unacceptable?
Bear in mind, I'm not trying to suggest that Cond 2 is better than Cond 1. I am only stating that I feel, when wearing a 1911 in an IWB or OWB holster, it is possible for the thumb safety to be "bumped" off and the grip safety to be pushed (incidentally by "spare tire" most likely) in which case the only thing keeping the gun from firing is the inertia of a 3.5-5.5 lbs trigger (which, I think, is still pretty safe). Whereas, with Cond 2, the gun cannot fire unless the hammer is pulled back manually or the slide is racked AND the grip safety pushed in, which, at least with my gun, takes a great deal more force and purpose than disengaging the thumb safety.
Until someone can spell out for me (not say "Cond 2 is bad and unsafe and you're an idiot") exactly why Cond 2 is unsafe (aside from decocking), I will continue to be bothered whenever someone states "Cond 1 is the only way" as though anyone who carries otherwise is an idiot. Here, I'll help you out ... if you cock the hammer manually with one hand while your other hand holds the pistol with the grip safety pushed in and a finger in the trigger guard, that would be unsafe. Likewise, if you try to decock a 1911 using only one hand (thumb on hammer also hangs off edge to push in grip safety), that would be unsafe. If you inadvertently push in the grip safety while in the holster and strike the hammer with a rock or something (actually, I'm not sure if all 1911's would fire in this case, but, what the he11), that would be unsafe.
I'm not saying Cond 1 is bad or unsafe. Simply that I'm more comfortable with Cond 2 ... for now.
Oh, and one other thing, if it's so bad to decock or cock a 1911 manually, why is the elongated hammer so popular? And why is it ribbed on the top? According to the "Cond 1 or bust" guys, you should never have to touch the thing. Why not shroud it? Or, completely conceal it? It seems, according to some, that would be far more appropriate than making the hammer easier to "grip" ... wouldn't it?
Aside from decocking, once in the holster, in what way is Cond 1 safer than Cond 2 ... that's not to say that Cond 2 IS safer ... I'm just curious?
Exactly, in what way, is it NOT a good idea to carry Cond 2?
And, I see no reason to believe that JMB would submit a pistol to the U.S. Army for acceptance without manual safeties unless he thought that was acceptable. I'm not trying to suggest that JMB intended the 1905 to be carried Cond 2 ... I was only trying to suggest that, perhaps, JMB didn't really consider the carry condition to be an issue, and, at the least, did not design the gun with the intention of cocked-n-locked as he did not design the "lock" into it until the Army came back to him and said they wanted one. In any event, as we have people insisting that Cond 1 is "the only way" to carry a 1911, it seems to me that the thoughts of the guy who actually designed the thing ARE relevant. Of course, at this point, we're just playing a guessing-game, but, if, at one time, Cond 2 was acceptable, how does the introduction of manual safeties make it unacceptable? Or would you suggest that without any manual safeties, that Cond 2 would still be unacceptable?
Bear in mind, I'm not trying to suggest that Cond 2 is better than Cond 1. I am only stating that I feel, when wearing a 1911 in an IWB or OWB holster, it is possible for the thumb safety to be "bumped" off and the grip safety to be pushed (incidentally by "spare tire" most likely) in which case the only thing keeping the gun from firing is the inertia of a 3.5-5.5 lbs trigger (which, I think, is still pretty safe). Whereas, with Cond 2, the gun cannot fire unless the hammer is pulled back manually or the slide is racked AND the grip safety pushed in, which, at least with my gun, takes a great deal more force and purpose than disengaging the thumb safety.
Until someone can spell out for me (not say "Cond 2 is bad and unsafe and you're an idiot") exactly why Cond 2 is unsafe (aside from decocking), I will continue to be bothered whenever someone states "Cond 1 is the only way" as though anyone who carries otherwise is an idiot. Here, I'll help you out ... if you cock the hammer manually with one hand while your other hand holds the pistol with the grip safety pushed in and a finger in the trigger guard, that would be unsafe. Likewise, if you try to decock a 1911 using only one hand (thumb on hammer also hangs off edge to push in grip safety), that would be unsafe. If you inadvertently push in the grip safety while in the holster and strike the hammer with a rock or something (actually, I'm not sure if all 1911's would fire in this case, but, what the he11), that would be unsafe.
I'm not saying Cond 1 is bad or unsafe. Simply that I'm more comfortable with Cond 2 ... for now.
Oh, and one other thing, if it's so bad to decock or cock a 1911 manually, why is the elongated hammer so popular? And why is it ribbed on the top? According to the "Cond 1 or bust" guys, you should never have to touch the thing. Why not shroud it? Or, completely conceal it? It seems, according to some, that would be far more appropriate than making the hammer easier to "grip" ... wouldn't it?
Christopher II
New member
It is my understanding that, due to the 1911's lack of a rebounding firing pin, a C2 1911 struck sharply on the hammer can discharge the round in the chamber.
Bad thing if it happens.
Some selective SA/DA pistols (the CZ75 and H&K P9S) have a rebounding firing pin, and so can be carried C1 or C2, as you like.
- Chris
Bad thing if it happens.
Some selective SA/DA pistols (the CZ75 and H&K P9S) have a rebounding firing pin, and so can be carried C1 or C2, as you like.
- Chris
Condition 1. All the time.
And to try to answer your question logically, Bad things about condition 2:
1. Need 2 hands to rack slide OR try to thumb cock under stress and slip. If you slip while thumbcocking, BOOM.
2. Sharp blow to hammer can fire gun.
3. Deactivating a thumb safety is MUCH faster than thumbcocking the gun. And just because a handful of pistoleros have done this through the last century doesn't mean squat, becuase there are 1000 X their number who use condition 1.
4. We can extrapolate on what John Browning intended as much as we like, how ever since he never wrote down one way or the other, it don't matter much. HOWEVER all his other single action guns designed, and produced by him have a thumb safety. JMB prototyped a vast array of weaponry in all sorts of configurations, I live an hour from the Browning Museum, there is a prototype 1911 there with a concealed hammer like one of his pocket guns. Wanna bet nobody was meant to thumb cock it?
5. I think that the top of the hammers are usually groved for those of us who dry fire a ton. I actually have a callus on my left thumb from this.
6. Beavertails are very common now, they make 1 handed thumb cocking even slower as the spur gets in the way.
7. Manually decocking is dangerous. Hence all the decocking devices on DA/SA guns. Sure you can do it if you are careful, but Why?
8. Thumb safetys don't get bumped off. I carry mine in a bellyband for goodness sake. It has never come off, and I've done some pretty strenuous stuff with it on. If it does come off, you are basically carrying a Glock. Don't pull the trigger. Everything is fine.
9. You are in the middle of some sort of action, (or stage requiring a ton of movement through obstacles for competitors, or you have to cuff a suspect for LEOs) you need to reholster your gun quickly. Which is going to be easier under stress, putting the safety on, or manually decocking?
There are my .02.
And to try to answer your question logically, Bad things about condition 2:
1. Need 2 hands to rack slide OR try to thumb cock under stress and slip. If you slip while thumbcocking, BOOM.
2. Sharp blow to hammer can fire gun.
3. Deactivating a thumb safety is MUCH faster than thumbcocking the gun. And just because a handful of pistoleros have done this through the last century doesn't mean squat, becuase there are 1000 X their number who use condition 1.
4. We can extrapolate on what John Browning intended as much as we like, how ever since he never wrote down one way or the other, it don't matter much. HOWEVER all his other single action guns designed, and produced by him have a thumb safety. JMB prototyped a vast array of weaponry in all sorts of configurations, I live an hour from the Browning Museum, there is a prototype 1911 there with a concealed hammer like one of his pocket guns. Wanna bet nobody was meant to thumb cock it?
5. I think that the top of the hammers are usually groved for those of us who dry fire a ton. I actually have a callus on my left thumb from this.
6. Beavertails are very common now, they make 1 handed thumb cocking even slower as the spur gets in the way.
7. Manually decocking is dangerous. Hence all the decocking devices on DA/SA guns. Sure you can do it if you are careful, but Why?
8. Thumb safetys don't get bumped off. I carry mine in a bellyband for goodness sake. It has never come off, and I've done some pretty strenuous stuff with it on. If it does come off, you are basically carrying a Glock. Don't pull the trigger. Everything is fine.
9. You are in the middle of some sort of action, (or stage requiring a ton of movement through obstacles for competitors, or you have to cuff a suspect for LEOs) you need to reholster your gun quickly. Which is going to be easier under stress, putting the safety on, or manually decocking?
There are my .02.
Edward429451
Moderator
C1.
MitchSchaft
New member
C&L!