1911 issue in re "condition" of carry

[Claymore33]

Carry in condition 2 all day

I carry Les Baer 1911 in Condition 2 all day every day. I carry in Milt Sparks Summer special. Then when in Indian Territory I go to Condition 1. Why would you not have gun ready to shoot immediately in self defense situation?

 

[PALADIN85020]

Dropping the gun has the risk of discharging it if it were to land on the hammer

I beg to differ. As you probably know, the firing pin is shorter than its tunnel in the slide and it's held back by its spring against the hammer. To fire, the hammer must drop smartly from full cock for the pin to be knocked forward with sufficient force to go forward through its tunnel and set off a primer. The gun falling on the hammer would have no effect - inertia would force it back against the hammer more firmly, not forward against a primer.

On the other hand, if the gun fell straight nose down on concrete, it is possible, but not probable, that inertia would allow the firing pin to move forward somewhat against its spring. Depending on the strength of the firing pin spring, it could conceivably contact the primer of a chambered round.

My opinion is that such an occurrence would be extremely rare, and even then the force of the firing pin on the primer would probably not be enough to set it off. It's one of those one in a million kind of things. The firing pin spring would have to be extremely weak to allow this to happen. All bets would be off if the gun fell straight down on its nose from the top of the empire state building... and in that case, the only result would be a .45 caliber hole in the concrete.

John

 

[AJ]

Agree to disagree, no one seems to have the same opinion. Just like rectums.

I carried the M1911A1 and M9 with rounds in the chamber and the safety on. What do I carry now? I carry a revolver as in J Frame S&W, easier to conceal and fast first shot if needed.

 

[lrrifleman]

Sorry to toss in a monkey wrench, but a specific perspective is missing. If I remember correctly, the FM was initially written to reflect the fact that the 1911 was supposed to be issued to horse mounted troops. Therefore, the military protocol became that the pistol be carried in what became known as Condition 3. If you actually put a 1911 in an issue hip holster, the flap won't button down on a pistol carried in Condition 1. If you consider the "smoothness " (sarcasm intended) of the ride a horse could provide regardless of the gait, would you want to trust the probability that a round would not fire from movement induced firing pin inertia?

Meanwhile, looking back at the issue holsters, the M1909(?) hip holster doesn't accommodate carrying the M1911 in Condition 1, but the tanker/aviator style shoulder holster may, except for the fact that the safety/retention strap will fit between the hammer and the slide!

Saint John knew how to build a safe gun. With the intended initial issue, the Army developed a FM and protocol which never changed because, "that's how we've always done it "!

 

[AJ]

I beg to differ. As you probably know, the firing pin is shorter than its tunnel in the slide and it's held back by its spring against the hammer. To fire, the hammer must drop smartly from full cock for the pin to be knocked forward with sufficient force to go forward through its tunnel and set off a primer. The gun falling on the hammer would have no effect - inertia would force it back against the hammer more firmly, not forward against a primer.

On the other hand, if the gun fell straight nose down on concrete, it is possible, but not probable, that inertia would allow the firing pin to move forward somewhat against its spring. Depending on the strength of the firing pin spring, it could conceivably contact the primer of a chambered round.

My opinion is that such an occurrence would be extremely rare, and even then the force of the firing pin on the primer would probably not be enough to set it off. It's one of those one in a million kind of things. The firing pin spring would have to be extremely weak to allow this to happen. All bets would be off if the gun fell straight down on its nose from top of the empire state building...

John

John,

While rare is can and does happen. That is the reason there was a change in the Victory Model during WW II. A sailor dropped his and it shot him IIRC.

AJ

 

[Gene L]

When I was in the Army, the method of carrying a 1911 was condition 3. Gun fanciers were few for C 1 and safety was the important thing for E 2s who had maybe a week of training on the 1911. Plus, the pistol was usually a secondary weapon to a rifle or an MG, and safety far outweighed time to engage a target.

 

[.357magger]

Well, to begin, I was in the "military" (20+) and routinely carried the M9 all over the globe. We carried with a round chambered and the safety off, mimicking the revolver manual of arms.

EDIT to add: By 'routinely' I mean that I carried a concealed handgun in a foreign country (or their airspace) for 50% or more of every month for the better part of 20 years.

The only firearm I ever carried during my 20 years was the M56 revolver and the M9.

My opinion on the matter is this. Carry in whatever way makes you most comfortable. But, consider seriously what is the most likely scenario that will occur to you where you live.

For me, I seldom have two available hands necessary to chamber round, thus all my handguns are loaded, round in the chamber, ready to fire. P229 or 1911, they are all one hand accessible (from concealment) and one hand fire-able.

The 1911 is safe to carry in Condition 1. It is completely safe to carry in Condition 1, thus the other conditions aren't more safe, just more complicated. Some people find comfort in complication. If you do, carry that way.

Leave the military and police examples out; very little applies to normal people carrying for their normal daily activities.

You seem to have taken what I posted, which is historically correct, personally for some reason. Perhaps if you read it again, without selectively editing, it would be clearer and no offense would be taken where none was offered.

Thanks for your military service of 20+ years. I wasn't aware that the Air Force (from your avatar) funded field troops (since I specified Infantry), en masse, armed only with handguns. My post clearly delineated "specialty personnel ", but that's not the part you chose to quote. And I also, specifically, excluded the M9, which you also chose not to quote, but took pains to explain your experience with.

Finally, for me, you can't "leave the military...out", if you're discussing what JMB intended (the entire reason for the thread) since he did so as a request from...the US military. Would seem to be somewhat pertinent, despite your personal experience.

In short, if you're going to quote me, please do so in context. I value everyone's opinion, like elbows, we most all have two. I don't value being misquoted and offense seemingly being taken when none was offered.

Have a great day.

 

[luvsmiths]

The original post brings up a valid point: just because many people on the internet repeat that "John Browning said...", doesn't mean that John Browning actually said it. History is full of these sorts of thing. Someone might say "If Browning were here, he'd say...", and after a few iterations it becomes "Browning said...".

So the question then becomes a case of finding an actual quote in, say, a biography by a real writer or second best, a memoir by a trusted source who heard it from Browning personally.

A third best source might be a manual from 1911. What did the Army have to say about it? That won't necessarily be as good as a Browning quote, but it at least gets us closer to the original source.

Now we just need someone with a good library to enlighten us with facts!

P.S. (and slightly related) I read somewhere on the internet (see what I mean?), that Browning's favorite pistol to actually carry (in his pocket, presumably), was an FN 1910. If this is true, did he carry it with a round in the chamber?

Browning would have liked your post.

 

[luvsmiths]

How come no one ever asks how Stoner intended the M-16 to be carried?

Stoners should not be carrying an M-16.

 

[lihpster]

Stoners should not be carrying n M-16.

Yeah, that would be a Garand mess.

 

[Mainsail]

You seem to have taken what I posted, which is historically correct, personally for some reason.

Oh, not at all. Sorry, sometimes tone is lost when things are written vs said. I was never offended (and can't see how one could be) at all. I was speaking to the somewhat absolute statement that the "military" mandated the carry of the M9 in the manner you stated, which was a misunderstanding of what you wrote actually.

Finally, for me, you can't "leave the military...out", if you're discussing what JMB intended (the entire reason for the thread) since he did so as a request from...the US military. Would seem to be somewhat pertinent, despite your personal experience.

That part was separated from your quote, and not related to anything you wrote, but was a response to other comments in other posts. As for Browning, I never met the guy, and he never designed the 1911 or its manual of arms for citizen carry, so his "thoughts" are immaterial outside the military context. I made the point that citizen carry and police/military carry have only some faint similarities, and using military examples in the context of citizen carry isn't really apt.

I was never offended, and never meant to offend.

As for editing, this is a gun forum, so the majority of readers are going to ignore any post with more than three or four lines. With our verbosity, our conversations will go mostly unread.

 

[Kurusu]

Army pistols, at least in my army, spend most of their lives unloaded most of the time with a empty magazine.

They only get to be loaded if they are going to be used or if problems are anticipated. A service pistol is not the same as a carry pistol.

As for Browning thoughts on the subject I have no ideia. But in his first rifle designs the only safety was the half cock. He was a hunter.

 

[seldon14]

Design intention doesn't matter.
Thinking a 1911 is safer hammer down on a live round is safer than cocked and locked is indicative of a lack of understanding of the mechanics of its operation.

 

[BAM-BAM]

It appears that nothing much has changed..... or been resolved.... in the 40 years I've been reading "Gun Rags" and the internet.........................


I've always felt what and how one carries is best defined within the context of where and why one is carrying a handgun.

 

[AJ]

It appears that nothing much has changed..... or resolved.... in the 40 years I've been reading "Gun Rags" and the internet.........................

That is more or less what I wrote up in Post # 23. Nothing has changed.

 

[ISCS Yoda]

I LOVE THIS CAMPFIRE!!!!!!!!!!

And I thank you all very much for these great comments.

As for editing, this is a gun forum, so the majority of readers are going to ignore any post with more than three or four lines. With our verbosity, our conversations will go mostly unread.

Well, I read every response, especially in a thread with such a controversial dead horse as this one is. And I started it so I simply HAD to read all the replies.

I went to Page 25 of the Field Manual, as Forum member dsf suggested, and I pulled this from it:

In campaign, when early use of the pistol is not fore- seen, it should be carried with a fully loaded magazine in the socket, chamber empty, hammer down. When early use of the pistol is probable, It should be carried loaded and locked in the holster or hand. In campaign, extra maga- zines should be carried fully loaded. m. When the pistol is carried In the holster loaded, cocked, and locked the butt should be rotated away from the body when drawing the pistol In order to avoid displacing the safety lock.

dsf's comment is very well put:

From 1940. Page 25 may provide some insight - or not -

Basically, the Field Manual contains every argument that everyone makes in just that one quoted paragraph. When do you carry the 1911 in Condition 3, when in Condition 0, when in Condition 1. It's very sensible.

But the ultimate issue that I actually raised, the question of the original design by JMB, appears to be that Saint John B did NOT design the 1911 to be carried in Condition 1, that the ability to do so came from Army requested modifications, and it was Saint Col Jeff C who developed the craft of the pistol in such a way that the use of Condition 1 became accepted as the normative standard.

But the anecdotal remarks above from members of the various armed services or law enforcement are priceless and I, for one, thank you all very much for your service and your writings.

 

[Bullet Bob]

Time for humor (?). On Guam about 1977 or so a couple of Marine guards at the Naval stations got into trouble firing their 1911's at a "green mist". I don't think they ever determined the cause of the mist, but I hear that Thai stick was potent stuff.

Anyway, for a while at least, they couldn't carry any ammo, so you'd go through the gate at the Navy bases, and the guards would even have a magazine in their pistolas.

Of course, being Air Force we made jokes about our guard dogs vs Marines, and who had first choice. I can't repeat them here because I'm old and feeble, and don't want any Marine's beating me up.

 

[.357magger]

Oh, not at all. Sorry, sometimes tone is lost when things are written vs said. I was never offended (and can't see how one could be) at all. I was speaking to the somewhat absolute statement that the "military" mandated the carry of the M9 in the manner you stated, which was a misunderstanding of what you wrote actually.

That part was separated from your quote, and not related to anything you wrote, but was a response to other comments in other posts. As for Browning, I never met the guy, and he never designed the 1911 or its manual of arms for citizen carry, so his "thoughts" are immaterial outside the military context. I made the point that citizen carry and police/military carry have only some faint similarities, and using military examples in the context of citizen carry isn't really apt.

I was never offended, and never meant to offend.

As for editing, this is a gun forum, so the majority of readers are going to ignore any post with more than three or four lines. With our verbosity, our conversations will go mostly unread.

Understood. Thank you for clarifying.

Sorry for getting my hackles up unnecessarily.

Thank you again for your career of military service.

 

[Hair Trigger]

Two thoughts.

The military, until the adoption of the Beretta M9 in the 80s, mandated hammer down on empty chamber for semi automatic handguns (and all semi automatic weapons for that matter) unless specifically ordered to charge the weapon, or upon immediate threat of imminent action. ("lock and load"). That was certainly true in the early years of the 1911 thru Vietnam, as least as far as training goes.

And, the military, whom the 1911 was originally designed for, regard handguns as secondary weapons, at best. In Infantry units, the handgun was for NCOs, Officers, or specialty personnel.

And the reason their mandate was changed is mainly due to the P92FS being a DA/SA pistol instead of SA only. There are safeties in the Beretta that don't exist in the 1922 which prevent drop discharges or inadvertent discharges. Like mailsail mentions below, with a chambered round and the hammer down, it's much like carrying a revolver. There is a long trigger pull the 1911 doesn't have, and there is a firing pin block, which only releases when the trigger is pulled, that the 1911 also does not have. The firing pin block will prevent a discharge from a dropped pistol, whichever way it lands. A sidearm is a secondary weapon only if the soldier is also issued a long arm. While they have limited use as an offensive weapon, they serve mostly for personal defense when issued. I was issued a revolver when flying into combat zones, and I was a non-combatant (Flight Nurse). Pilots and other aircrew are also issued sidearms for self-defense on occasion.

Well, to begin, I was in the "military" (20+) and routinely carried the M9 all over the globe. We carried with a round chambered and the safety off, mimicking the revolver manual of arms.

I beg to differ. As you probably know, the firing pin is shorter than its tunnel in the slide and it's held back by its spring against the hammer. To fire, the hammer must drop smartly from full cock for the pin to be knocked forward with sufficient force to go forward through its tunnel and set off a primer. The gun falling on the hammer would have no effect - inertia would force it back against the hammer more firmly, not forward against a primer.

It has been demonstrated that the 1911 will discharge if dropped on a lowered hammer with a chambered round (C2). The force of the hammer striking the ground can be several times what the normal spring-powered hammer fall is, if it lands on a hard surface. The inherent safety of C1 carry over C2 is that the hammer is protected by the dovetail (especially the extended ones on newer models) when the gun is cocked, and the hammer spur will generally break before the half cock notch will shear or break.

 

[Absalom]

Just one thought which I didn‘t notice in the thread yet, but which I find pertinent:

The danger of Condition 2 (a 1911 with the hammer manually lowered onto a loaded chamber and then manually cocked) is NOT, in my understanding and more importantly practical experience, at all related to dropping the gun.

It is related to the hammer slipping off the thumb, possibly resulting in an unintentional discharge. I‘ve done it, I know other 1911 carriers who‘ve done it with more serious results, and if you don‘t think it can happen to you, that would be hubris.

That is the main reason why Condition 1 is safer.