5906 - possible cock and lock?

gnfrk · Apr 28, 2014

I did search the forums and couldn't really find a match to my question. Lots of threads about convert to DAO but nothing about converting to "cock and lock".

I've owned 1911's and a few other pistols that have allowed "cock and lock" and so I am a fan of it.

I am wondering if there is a way to convert to "cock and lock". I see that there is a "disengage" lever mounted in the frame that decocks the hammer when it is struck by the safety/decock lever. Is it as simple as removing that lever or filing it down?

Would like to hear your input. BMCM, you've done a ton of mods to your own carry guns. I wonder if this is possible?

grif684 · Apr 28, 2014

Yes, it's possible, I have done it before just to show it can be done. It requires removing material from the sear trip lever. I really see no reason to do this modification, but it is possible...

grif684 · Apr 28, 2014

Here's a couple pics, although I did this to a model 59, it will work the same on a third gen. First pic shows the area to be removed highlighted in white, second pic shows pistol "cocked and locked"...

beuford · Apr 28, 2014

Cocked and locked mode

I had an early, AIP-prefixed 5904 that came with what appeared to be a factory-modified sear release lever to allow for cocked and locked operation. I contacted the factory, and while they could not confirm that a particular gun shipped with this option, they did confirm that it was an option. I sold the 5904 to a forum member; maybe they can post pictures of the sear release lever.

If you decide to do this yourself, DO NOT use the original sear release lever; buy another one from a parts company and modify that one. The sear release lever is fitted to the gun at the time it is manufactured (to correctly time the safety so that the firing pin is properly blocked before the sear is released), and fitting another one is more hassle than it's worth. Using a "spare" prevents the need to fit a new one if you decide to go back to the stock configuration.

Beuford

skjos · Apr 28, 2014

IF all it takes is a modification of the sear lever, you may be able to buy a Super 9 sear lever rather than modify one. The Super 9 comes stock as a cocked and locked pistol.

handgunner356 · Apr 28, 2014

The thing is they aren't "cocked and locked" they are only "cocked and Blocked". You pull the trigger the hammer still falls but the gun won't fire. This is something I don't want in a high stress situation.

skjos · Apr 28, 2014

I can't say what the modification to the sear lever will do, but the Super 9 is cocked and locked.

grif684 · Apr 29, 2014

handgunner356 said:
The thing is they aren't "cocked and locked" they are only "cocked and Blocked". You pull the trigger the hammer still falls but the gun won't fire. This is something I don't want in a high stress situation.

They are indeed cocked and locked, the hammer will not fall when the trigger is pulled. Whenever the safety is down, the drawbar is pushed down away from the sear, just like it is without a magazine inserted in the pistol. If you have a model with no magazine safety, or it has been disabled, then, yes, the hammer may fall against the safety body, but it cannot contact the firing pin, which is also blocked by the firing pin plunger. On any standard TDA pistol with the magazine safety intact, it's cocked and locked with this modification. The super 9 is a single action pistol, not a TDA, and was designed that way.

gnfrk · Apr 29, 2014

So looking over the safety/decock lever and the functions of the magazine disconnect, the sear release lever and the firing pin lever, it would appear that filing a slot in the safety lever where the sear release is would allow the sear release to stay engaged and hence allow the hammer to stay cocked and locked with the safety lever in a downward direction. As I see it, the safety lever when rotated to the downward position presses the sear release downward and this decocks the hammer. So having a slot to keep the safety from pressing this sear release lever should allow it to stay cocked and locked.

Thoughts?

BMCM · Apr 29, 2014

gnfrk said:
I've owned 1911's and a few other pistols that have allowed "cock and lock" and so I am a fan of it.

I am wondering if there is a way to convert to "cock and lock". I see that there is a "disengage" lever mounted in the frame that decocks the hammer when it is struck by the safety/decock lever. Is it as simple as removing that lever or filing it down?

Would like to hear your input. BMCM, you've done a ton of mods to your own carry guns. I wonder if this is possible?

Sorry, I didn't realize you were looking for my input until I happened to peek in here. I don't typically read every single thread posted, just peruse the titles that grab my attention.

The conversion you speak of while possible is not something I'd ever consider doing.

I have spent a good deal of time with a 1911 on my belt and certainly prefer condition 1 carry for that platform, so I get that you like cocked & locked. However the logic of doing this to a 3rd gen escapes me. For one thing, the to motion to sweep the safety off is the exact opposite between these two platforms. And as a CCW, when you modify or disable a safety function of the factory configuration I think you open yourself up to some additional legal vulnerability in event of a defensive shooting. you will also dis-qualify the weapon from competition, IDPA for example disqualifies weapons with disabled safety features.

Sure, I do a lot of modification to my carry guns but, but all that stuff is really just cosmetic and doesn't change the function of my weapon at all from as designed. You may note there are some things I never mess with. I don't mess with or disable safety features, I don't throat barrels, and I don't mess with engagement surfaces on sears triggers or hammers beyond a very light stoning to smooth things up and never ever change the cut angles.

So, yes I used to carry a 1911 in condition 1 quite often and over the years have gravitated towards and settled upon the 3rd gen 45 as my go to CCW.

I have, over quite some time trained myself to shoot equally well with either hand/eye so. As a result, I've developed a strong preference for ambi controls on my carry guns. Also like many folk my age do, I do occasionally bump into stuff. Stuff like doorjambs, shopping carts, lamp posts, trees, you get the picture. Makes me kinda nervous when I bump into stuff and find my 1911 safety has been disengaged in the holster. This is not an issue with my 3rd gens. The worst that can happen is my safety gets turned on, (has happened a few times) might slow me down a bit but won't cause me to ND myself in the butt. Otherwise and by design, the weapon is perfectly safe to carry with the M/S lever left in the fire position. Actually, I find the ideal configuration, at least for my personal preference, is the factory decock only arrangement. I like the "revolver like" simplicity of being able to bring the arm into action without having to worry about any buttons, knobs, or levers that need to be actuated first.

I you go forward with this modification, if nothing more than as an exercise in what you can do, these are my recommendations; take great care to insure you are able to revert to the as designed factory function. Don't modify any parts that are fit to and on the gun now, get additional parts to experiment with. And, while modified for condition 1 function, relegate the weapon to range toy status only. I wouldn't carry it for any serious purpose.

gnfrk said:
So looking over the safety/decock lever and the functions of the magazine disconnect, the sear release lever and the firing pin lever, it would appear that filing a slot in the safety lever where the sear release is would allow the sear release to stay engaged and hence allow the hammer to stay cocked and locked with the safety lever in a downward direction. As I see it, the safety lever when rotated to the downward position presses the sear release downward and this decocks the hammer. So having a slot to keep the safety from pressing this sear release lever should allow it to stay cocked and locked.

Thoughts?

That is certainly not the part I'd mess with. Those M/S levers are nigh impossible to obtain nowadays unless you buy another whole gun or happen to stumble across one on the used parts market in which case it may or may not even be serviceable.

The sear release lever on the other hand is still a stock item here and there and in a pinch you could even make one out of hardenable stainless steel with a few simple tools. Not so with the M/S safety, you wont be making one of those with a drill, hacksaw & a few files. Beyond some light stoning to smooth the function, I classify the M/S safety lever as a part not to be messed with. In general when you're going off the reservation with modifications you need to consider what is the most easily replaced part in case it doesn't work or you screw it up. If you decide to experiment with this conversion, stick to fiddling with the sear release lever.

Apologies for the long winded reply... You did ask for my input though

Cheers
Bill

Doug M. · Apr 29, 2014

BMCM said:
The conversion you speak of while possible is not something I'd ever consider doing.

I have spent a good deal of time with a 1911 on my belt and certainly prefer condition 1 carry for that platform, so I get that you like cocked & locked. However the logic of doing this to a 3rd gen escapes me. For one thing, the to motion to sweep the safety off is the exact opposite between these two platforms.
Cheers
Bill

*
Putting aside all the other good points made, this to me is the big one. I am not a fan of the slide mounted decocker/safety lever in the first place, because it is harder to reach. It is also harder to operate because it goes the opposite of the 1911. That can be overcome with a lot of work, but if you are already accustomed to a 1911, it is much harder and really not a good investment in energy and time.

The 1911 is the pinnacle of ergonomics. If that is what you want, don't try to make something else into it. That's about as silly as modifying a Ferrari to pull a semi-trailer - you can do it if you throw enough cash, but you'll be happier if you start with a real class 8 tractor.

grif684 · Apr 29, 2014

I happen to agree, I don't really understand why you would want to do this to a D/A pistol, where all you need to do is draw, point, and squeeze the trigger, provided you carry (as I do) with the chamber loaded, hammer down, and safety off (up). I only did this to show another member it was possible (I have extra sear levers), and promptly switched it right back.

gnfrk · Apr 29, 2014

So I hear everything everyone is saying and I appreciate everyone's input and responses. It's not a great idea to modify the functionality of the pistol. Got it.

So in this exercise of discussion we haven't really answered the question of whether or not it could be done in the true fashion of "cocked and locked". The understanding gathered from discussions as such help to understand the inner workings of the firearm. If questions as such are not asked we don't have to stretch our understanding as we attempt to articulate how it works to those whom ask the question.

From the discussions/answers shared above it seems no one has attempted this before other than the modification that was made to the sear release lever which does not create a true "cocked and locked" condition. With the good point that BMCM stated above about availability of parts it would be imprudent to attempt such a modification.

Thanks again everyone for the discussion, it caused me to think more of the functionality and inner workings as it was talked out here. Seems we'll leave customization to the cosmetic changes.

BMCM · Apr 29, 2014

gnfrk said:
So in this exercise of discussion we haven't really answered the question of whether or not it could be done in the true fashion of "cocked and locked".

It was clear to me the "how to" was indeed answered so I didn't reiterate in my post. perhaps I read into some stuff that wasn't there, I do that sometimes

.

Anyway, you cut the foot off the sear release lever thereby removing the de-cock function entirely from the weapon. The sear release lever becomes a simple spacer to keep the firing pin safety lever in it's place. Now when you engage the safety with the hammer at full cock it stays at full cock. The drawbar is moved downward disengaging from the sear and the firing pin is covered by the manual safety and the trigger is dead. There would be no more de-cock feature, to lower the hammer you would sweep the safety up to the fire position, grasp the hammer and pull the trigger while manually lowering the hammer.

Note that in this condition even with the safety in the down/on position, the drawbar still engages with the firing pin safety lever so even though the trigger is deadstick, pulling it will still disengage the firing pin safety plunger.

So, when I think of true condition 1, my minds eye sees the hammer at full cock over a loaded chamber and the manual safety engaged. Same as any other single action self loader amongst the myriad designs out there. The manual safety now serves solely as an (on / off) switch. If my view of condition 1 is the same as yours then what I described above is as close as you're gonna get with a TDA Smith. Beyond that, no matter how hard you try, you're not going to turn a 5906 into a 1911.

And since it bears repeating I'll again say, If you want to do this as an exercise in what can be accomplished I say sure go right ahead but I counsel against carrying any pistol so modified for any serious purpose. Range toy? fine. CCW? no way!

Cheers
Bill

TexasG · Apr 30, 2014

gnfrk said:
the functionality and inner workings as it was talked out here. Seems we'll leave customization to the cosmetic changes.

I followed this thread like when we slow down and drive slow by a bad car crash.
I'm a tinkerer too, all the way up to the point where modifying factory safety systems, takes your serviceable, quality built 3rd Gen firearm "personally" modified to *****. All bets are off - leave the SA designs to the engineers.

grif684 · Apr 30, 2014

gnfrk said:
So in this exercise of discussion we haven't really answered the question of whether or not it could be done in the true fashion of "cocked and locked".

Either I am missing your point completely, or you are missing mine. See above posts #2 and #3, it IS possible and I HAVE done it, and it does function as a true "cocked and locked" pistol. Period. I believe your original question was could it be done? I believe I answered your question.

armorer951 · Apr 30, 2014

5906 safety modification

I didn't see anyone mention another obvious reason not to modify the manual safety/decock in this, or any other gun.
Liability. If you choose to make or allow any modification to a gun that alters it's original design, especially the design of the safety mechanism, you are taking a huge risk, not only from a safety standpoint, but civilly and criminally as well.
Guns seized in civil and criminal actions are routinely examined for alterations and modifications.....and as a result, the risks of these alterations have to be weighed against the perceived "benefit". The resulting benefit in this case would be impossible to justify before a jury, especially in the case of a tragic injury or death IMHO.

BMCM · Apr 30, 2014

I kinda of touched on that issue but not to your degree. Very well said indeed.

BMCM said:
And as a CCW, when you modify or disable a safety function of the factory configuration I think you open yourself up to some additional legal vulnerability in event of a defensive shooting.

gnfrk · May 1, 2014

grif - my apology I took your posts in #2 and #3 along with what handgunner said in post #6 and correlated them to mean that it would end up with "cocked and blocked" - totally my fault - sorry

BMCM and amorer - I totally get your points on modification and liability

BMCM - thank you for the detailed explanation of the mechanics. I may have another question, only to help me understand it more clearly, but I gotta sleep on it and then look some more at the stripped down gun to make sure I get what you're saying.

Doug M. · May 1, 2014

BMCM said:
And as a CCW, when you modify or disable a safety function of the factory configuration I think you open yourself up to some additional legal vulnerability in event of a defensive shooting.

*
As a trial lawyer, I have to caution that although I would oppose the modification on a carry gun for the motor skill reasons the Master Chief and I have both mentioned, the legal issues are more nuanced.

The more significant risk in terms of litigation would be arise if negligence could be argued, as opposed to intent. Most lawyers know jack about use of force and firearms. I include most criminal practitioners in that group, and judges are often worse. I've had some really interesting experiences in court with judges who did not know what they did not know. In an intentional use of force setting, the firearm is not evidence and little if anything about its condition should be admissible. See ER 401-403. It would not matter if you shot the offender with a .22 revolver, a shotgun, MaDuece, or ran them over with a car as long as the use of lethal force was justified.

HOWEVER, if any credible allegation can be made that the shooting was negligent, then modifications that had any real possibility of making the firearm less resistant to stupid behavior MIGHT be admissible. The specific facts of an event will have a lot to do with how that plays out, so predictions are hard.

Some of this will also vary by the culture of your locale. Around here, I doubt I would have a litigation problem. In someplace like Chicago, NJ, or other NFE locations, the anti-gun bias might result in a badly flawed evidentiary ruling, and the standard on review is "abuse of discretion", which is a bear to overcome. If you live in a place where the decedent in an OIS is referred to as a "victim" other than by the initial sloppy media reports, you might well have a problem.

My co-author and I are likely to become involved in the defense of an officer who has been charged in a clearly justified shooting, and the politics of the issue have overcome any objective legal analysis. A friend of mine is being treated in a similar manner with regard to his on-duty OIS, and although not charged or likely to be, the same analytical flaws are apparent. It is at best malpractice by the prosecutors in both cases, and arguably actual misconduct, but that does not make it less of a (very expensive) poop fight.

Click to expand...

5906 - possible cock and lock?

Member

Member

Member

Attachments

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

US Veteran

Member

Member

Member

US Veteran

US Veteran

Member

US Veteran

Member

Member

Similar threads