Zaydok Allen
Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2011
- Messages
- 13,274
1911 cocked-and-locked, anyone ever forgets the safety?
- Thread starter Kano383
- Start date
- Status
ArchAngelCD
Member.
Even in this thread there is a lot of bad information. The 1911 is not an "expert's" gun. It is not to complicated to use. Practice practice and practice and you will do what you practice if the worst happed and you need to use your SD handgun.
No gun is to complicate to use and if you feel that it is, you probably shouldn't be carrying a gun.
No gun is to complicate to use and if you feel that it is, you probably shouldn't be carrying a gun.
1911 guy
Member
ArchAngelCD nailed it in post #27. If you find the 1911 too complicated, for "experts only", etc, you missed the boat. The U.S. military handed them out by the tens of thousands to young men who had elementary to middle school educations. These men used them well and despite being "dumb farm kids" managed to save the free world from Hitler and Hirohito. But if you're incapable of managing with range time and no stress what they were expected to with minimal training, so be it. Just use a spoon to eat everything, you might put your eye out with a fork.
If a specific pistol does not fit your hands or you just don't like it, fine. Those are legitimate things. But to call one of the most commonly used firearms of the twentieth century "complicated" because it has a safety lever is idiotic. For example, I do not like Glock pistols because of the grip angle, the asinine white outline on the rear sight and the mushy trigger. But I don't bash them as being unreliable or inaccurate or above/below my ability to use. Some people love them. Same goes with every manufacturer or design. Is the Mossberg 500 an "expert's shotgun" because it, too, has a safety?
If a specific pistol does not fit your hands or you just don't like it, fine. Those are legitimate things. But to call one of the most commonly used firearms of the twentieth century "complicated" because it has a safety lever is idiotic. For example, I do not like Glock pistols because of the grip angle, the asinine white outline on the rear sight and the mushy trigger. But I don't bash them as being unreliable or inaccurate or above/below my ability to use. Some people love them. Same goes with every manufacturer or design. Is the Mossberg 500 an "expert's shotgun" because it, too, has a safety?
One thing I do not like about the 1911 safety is that it will bind if the trigger is held down. So if you screw up the sequence, you have to back off to fix it. Other guns will allow the safety to be pushed down even with pressure on the trigger. This seems like a better mechanism.
Panzerschwein
member
While I don't carry an M1911, I do carry a Пистолет Макарова (PM) that has a slide-mounted safety that operates in the same direction as an M1911, so a swipe down upon the draw removes the safety as on the American pistol. However the PM is a double-action/single-action design with a decocker, making it safe to carry either with the safety on or off. I personally carry it with the safety on just like an M1911 and I have never forgotten to take it off before firing:
Hangingrock
Member
I go back to 1964 with introduction to the 1911A1 at Parris Island firing for familiarization and if memory serves me correctly two magazines thus 14 rounds.
So your left handed in a right handed world thus you adapt. Later on with the advent of the amberdictrous safety life became some what easier. The grip safety was/is problematic for some individuals. One solution was to pin it in place but now there are grip safety designs with raised pads that preclude problems. Throating of the barrel chamber to feed different bullet profiles other than the 230Gr-FMJ. Magazines OEM, Metal Form, Wilson, CMC and the list goes on etcetera, etcetera. Then you have the issue of spring rate deflection, etcetera & etcetera.
Its easier to name manufactures that don't produce a 1911 series pistol then those that do. You also have the custom makers like Wilson, Nighthawk and etcetera.
For myself I make due with Colt and Springfield.
I'm not saying its an experts pistol to operate but you do have to know the manual of arms.
So your left handed in a right handed world thus you adapt. Later on with the advent of the amberdictrous safety life became some what easier. The grip safety was/is problematic for some individuals. One solution was to pin it in place but now there are grip safety designs with raised pads that preclude problems. Throating of the barrel chamber to feed different bullet profiles other than the 230Gr-FMJ. Magazines OEM, Metal Form, Wilson, CMC and the list goes on etcetera, etcetera. Then you have the issue of spring rate deflection, etcetera & etcetera.
Its easier to name manufactures that don't produce a 1911 series pistol then those that do. You also have the custom makers like Wilson, Nighthawk and etcetera.
For myself I make due with Colt and Springfield.
I'm not saying its an experts pistol to operate but you do have to know the manual of arms.
Dog Soldier
member
Yes, We all have had different experiences. My own memories have become blurred since I was a young Dog Soldier/K9 Handler so long ago. I don't know if shooting paper targets provide the same experience. So I yield to those who know more about human responses.
JTQ
Member
Massad Ayoob had an American Handgunner article a couple of years ago where he listed instances where manual safety's have saved officer's lives. If I recall correctly, in his research he hadn't found any instances where the failure to operate a manual safety had cost an officer their life. I did a quick web search, but couldn't find the article.
For me, the key to properly operating the 1911 is getting a "full firing grip" on the gun when you grab the gun in the holster. With a 1911, that means getting to the thumb safety. Note Gunsite instructor Ed Head about :40 into this Gun Talk TV 1911 video.
If you have a giant sweat shield that prevents you from getting a full firing grip, or as mentioned already, don't use a thumb on top of the thumb safety, you'll probably have trouble. However, with a full firing grip when you grasp the gun in the holster and use the thumb on top of the thumb safety grip, you're probably more likely to forget to pull the trigger than forget the safety. With a proper grip on a 1911, your thumb spends more time on the thumb safety (always) than your trigger finger spends on the trigger.
If you're thinking about getting into 1911's, this video on carry conditions may also be helpful
This NSSF video with Doug Koenig on how to grip a pistol may also be helpful
For me, the key to properly operating the 1911 is getting a "full firing grip" on the gun when you grab the gun in the holster. With a 1911, that means getting to the thumb safety. Note Gunsite instructor Ed Head about :40 into this Gun Talk TV 1911 video.
If you have a giant sweat shield that prevents you from getting a full firing grip, or as mentioned already, don't use a thumb on top of the thumb safety, you'll probably have trouble. However, with a full firing grip when you grasp the gun in the holster and use the thumb on top of the thumb safety grip, you're probably more likely to forget to pull the trigger than forget the safety. With a proper grip on a 1911, your thumb spends more time on the thumb safety (always) than your trigger finger spends on the trigger.
If you're thinking about getting into 1911's, this video on carry conditions may also be helpful
This NSSF video with Doug Koenig on how to grip a pistol may also be helpful
JTQ
Member
I've not heard that before. I pulled out my personal 1911 and couldn't get it to do that.
On the other hand, I've seen several reports from HK users that have gotten their safety/decocker lever into position while riding the safety, that put their trigger in a "dead zone" where it was non-functional.
I've had 1911s where the trigger could put enough pressure through the sear that the safety wouldn't move.
The HK problem is why combination safety/decockers are of that type are suspect. Better to go with the no-decock variant if you are going to use the pistol that way. But really, the HK decocker is in a crummy spot for most people to ride the safety. No riding the safety = no problem.
Vern Humphrey
Member
"who kicked the safety on inadvertently under stress"
Which is a bit different from not taking the safety off. People have also inadvertently engaged the slide stop and dropped magazines (and not only on M1911s.)
That's another reason why I use the thumb over thumb hold..
Which is a bit different from not taking the safety off. People have also inadvertently engaged the slide stop and dropped magazines (and not only on M1911s.)
That's another reason why I use the thumb over thumb hold..
CapnMac
Member
Never had a problem with a 1911 safety, nor a Hi-Power either.
Luger safety . . .
Luger safety . . .
OP
OP
Kano383
Member
Which goes towards what I thought initially... All that talk about "guns with safeties are unsafe because too complicated" is mostly bollocks and armchair expertise. As someone pointed out, this started making the rounds when - coincidence, coincidence - they started aggressively marketing plastic guns without safeties, especially to Government agencies.
When assessing Defense or other Government contract tenders, bureaucrats love this kind of "propaganda technicalese" in order to justify their pick of the day - and the millions spent on that decision.
People face angry one-ton killer animals everyday with rifles that ALL have safeties, most of them in a stupid place (how would you like to have a three stages safety on the right side your handgun? Think again...), but strangely manage to flick them off under stress.
I started this thread because I'm tempted by a handgun with many qualities but no safety (no, it's not a Glock), and after studying it well I reckon that it would be doable to install one. I'm not keen on carrying with an empty chamber, but also do not like the idea of having a gun that can discharge if anything gets caught in the holster, or if inquisitive little fingers find a way there (I know, "you're the safety", yadda, yadda... Tell that to Murphy, to all those "Glock legs" around, and to all the kids who shoot themselves or someone else every year by just grabbing a gun they spot somewhere, even though all the above is not s'posed to happen).
So I'll probably go ahead and try the mod... At my peril
Which is the point - every time we read of someone who fails to take off the safety in training or competition, we read the instructor or observer's biased comment they just "died." It is presented as a fact without any justification.
Supposedly the interaction of individuals is so intense and quick that the shooter failing to take off the safety is a split second too late to discharge his firearm and is hit by the other shooter's slug instantly dropping him where he stands. Really? Show me the forensic analysis of a shooting incident and the CSI conclusion that took place. I want to see evidence that a split second's mishap killed someone.
You can't. It is impossible to determine. Incident analysis almost NEVER goes to that level of detail, and there is usually none done for the hundreds of thousands of gun presentations done monthly. For the number of times it's clearly recorded, I've read a dozen incidents on the net where a mag safety saved an officer's life in a struggle.
"In the old days" most gun carriers were using revolvers - DA - no safety. Up until the mid 80's that was the choice of weapon for the millions of LEO's serving in the streets. We can't go back and rustle up statistics about it because those guns lacked a safety in the first place. The automatics that succeeded them were often DA SAFE actions or DA/SA S&W 3Gens. Most officers carried them on DA and never bothered with the safety as a direct result of transistioning from DA revolvers.
So, who are the numerous experts who claim safeties are dangerous? For the most part, sponsored competition shooters or LEO instructors. The first see any disruption of their presentation as a failure, yet many carry the 1911. I see it as a bit of imagemaking. They can carry one but you aren't good enough. The second crowd tend to train on safetyless weapons deliberately chosen from the guns offered that resemble revolvers. We are still dealing with that anachronistic situation to this day.
What is the track record in the military service where many designs are chosen, even specified to have a safety? That's the point - mil issue guns are required to have one. Yet those who carry them are likely much less "experienced" in either years or being on the shooting range weekly to perfect their skills. Command doesn't see it as a problem. It's not spoken of as an issue that gets soldiers killed. For the most part if there are going to be bullets flying, the military uses rules of engagement and you know when to take the safety off BEFOREHAND.
It's the casual carrier walking the mean streets suddenly accosted by a gunman who is drawing their weapon in an attempt to lethally dispose of you who is always presented as the threat, no idea where this guy came from or why. So in response you are supposed to smoothly draw your weapon already predisposed to shoot and you miss flipping off the safety. And you always die as a result. Every time. No other possible outcome. Seems like the entire scenario lacks any realistic common sense. More like you messed up in a stage and you "die" because you post another half second at worst and it drops you in the standings. Even if you are late and get shot, many report still firing and disabling if not killing their attacker.
No, missing the safety isn't a good thing, but for the most part, it's a rare event entirely undiscoverable in shootings. What we do know far more often is that people heard shooting, saw a gun man, had no prepared course of action, and were shot just standing there flat footed. They simply could not process the reality fast enough. Many more die as a result of that than "oops I missed the safety." If you have the gun out you are way ahead of the curve and I suspect if you get just one shot off then - as recorded in many recent events - the shooter often flees and turns the gun on themself.
Don't focus to closely on that safety thing, focus on training and being aware. People telling you your gun with a safety will get you killed are quitely likely saying it to sell you something - the gun they carry. Take that with a big lump of salt. The internet may be the marketplace of ideas, but it's a marketplace first, and selling you an idea they make money on thru shilling for their products and services is going on regardless of their denial.
Supposedly the interaction of individuals is so intense and quick that the shooter failing to take off the safety is a split second too late to discharge his firearm and is hit by the other shooter's slug instantly dropping him where he stands. Really? Show me the forensic analysis of a shooting incident and the CSI conclusion that took place. I want to see evidence that a split second's mishap killed someone.
You can't. It is impossible to determine. Incident analysis almost NEVER goes to that level of detail, and there is usually none done for the hundreds of thousands of gun presentations done monthly. For the number of times it's clearly recorded, I've read a dozen incidents on the net where a mag safety saved an officer's life in a struggle.
"In the old days" most gun carriers were using revolvers - DA - no safety. Up until the mid 80's that was the choice of weapon for the millions of LEO's serving in the streets. We can't go back and rustle up statistics about it because those guns lacked a safety in the first place. The automatics that succeeded them were often DA SAFE actions or DA/SA S&W 3Gens. Most officers carried them on DA and never bothered with the safety as a direct result of transistioning from DA revolvers.
So, who are the numerous experts who claim safeties are dangerous? For the most part, sponsored competition shooters or LEO instructors. The first see any disruption of their presentation as a failure, yet many carry the 1911. I see it as a bit of imagemaking. They can carry one but you aren't good enough. The second crowd tend to train on safetyless weapons deliberately chosen from the guns offered that resemble revolvers. We are still dealing with that anachronistic situation to this day.
What is the track record in the military service where many designs are chosen, even specified to have a safety? That's the point - mil issue guns are required to have one. Yet those who carry them are likely much less "experienced" in either years or being on the shooting range weekly to perfect their skills. Command doesn't see it as a problem. It's not spoken of as an issue that gets soldiers killed. For the most part if there are going to be bullets flying, the military uses rules of engagement and you know when to take the safety off BEFOREHAND.
It's the casual carrier walking the mean streets suddenly accosted by a gunman who is drawing their weapon in an attempt to lethally dispose of you who is always presented as the threat, no idea where this guy came from or why. So in response you are supposed to smoothly draw your weapon already predisposed to shoot and you miss flipping off the safety. And you always die as a result. Every time. No other possible outcome. Seems like the entire scenario lacks any realistic common sense. More like you messed up in a stage and you "die" because you post another half second at worst and it drops you in the standings. Even if you are late and get shot, many report still firing and disabling if not killing their attacker.
No, missing the safety isn't a good thing, but for the most part, it's a rare event entirely undiscoverable in shootings. What we do know far more often is that people heard shooting, saw a gun man, had no prepared course of action, and were shot just standing there flat footed. They simply could not process the reality fast enough. Many more die as a result of that than "oops I missed the safety." If you have the gun out you are way ahead of the curve and I suspect if you get just one shot off then - as recorded in many recent events - the shooter often flees and turns the gun on themself.
Don't focus to closely on that safety thing, focus on training and being aware. People telling you your gun with a safety will get you killed are quitely likely saying it to sell you something - the gun they carry. Take that with a big lump of salt. The internet may be the marketplace of ideas, but it's a marketplace first, and selling you an idea they make money on thru shilling for their products and services is going on regardless of their denial.
Chuck R.
Member
This is my issue with HKs. I've tried to run 3 (USP, HK45 and P30) in condition one, the HK45 I even converted to a V0 (SA), and the safety is just in the wrong position for my grip. It actually pushes my palm off the pistol when I try to ride it. So my HKs became LEMs. I've never had an HK Safety/De-cocker go dead, but I have had them de-cock and go to DA when I was expecting SA.
Chuck
45_auto
Member
kbob said:
Same here. I run a local monthly pistol match, 5 or 6 stages, about 12-15 shooters each month, and I would estimate that I see it happen 3 or 4 times a year.
Rick McC.
Member
If anything I have the opposite problem, I tend to swipe the safety off just from habit without really even realizing I did it.
Anyone who gets confused by a 1911 safety, or forgets to disengage it has spent very, very little time with a 1911.
The only place I've ever heard of problems is on the internet, and then it's a potential problem. Let's face it, if you can't handle a 1911 safety, you really don't need to be carrying a 1911 for more than one reason.
Same here.
It happens early on in the draw stroke.
Indawind
Member
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2016
- Messages
- 63
I'm not going to the "you are the safety" thing it is just too cliche' but there is a thread through this that can't be ignored.I started this thread because I'm tempted by a handgun with many qualities but no safety (no, it's not a Glock), and after studying it well I reckon that it would be doable to install one. I'm not keen on carrying with an empty chamber, but also do not like the idea of having a gun that can discharge if anything gets caught in the holster, or if inquisitive little fingers find a way there (I know, "you're the safety", yadda, yadda... Tell that to Murphy, to all those "Glock legs" around, and to all the kids who shoot themselves or someone else every year by just grabbing a gun they spot somewhere, even though all the above is not s'posed to happen).
So I'll probably go ahead and try the mod... At my peril
You worry about something getting into the trigger? Buy a real freaking holster that fits the gun, not a generic POC nylon "got a great deal on it" holster.
You have something in the holster that hooks the trigger during a reholster? You're bad, don't know what to say. Stupid should hurt. Was there a lesson learned there? Check the holster for clear before you put the gun back.
Glock leg, I love that. So what is the name for the people that shoot themselves in the hand while breaking a glock down? Hmmm didn't check for loaded before you pull the trigger, not a design issue. That is a software issue.
Kids, If you are not responsible enough to control your weapon I am sorry. Don't have a gun around kids if you can't. They might just be in the segment of people that really shouldn't own a gun. Don't get me wrong. When kids are involved it is tragic, truly, I am not trying to be flip here. There are people that just cant drive and hit crap all the time.
We as Americans have a Right to own guns. People as a whole fit under a Bell Curve, some people will be dangerous with a gun unless they just can't have bullets for it.
This is such a meaningless sentence.
Plenty of people that are "responsible" - good training and habits - have gotten into trouble when handling Glocks. And you saying that you are sorry misses the fact that when something bad does happen it can hurt or kill more than just the user. Your "sorry" doesn't begin to cover it.
All human beings, even the "responsible" ones, are subject to moments of fallibility, and certain firearms designs are extremely intolerant of even momentary misjudgments or loss of control.
If you have never drifted into another lane while driving, broken a dish, cut yourself with a knife or stepped on someone's toes - congratulations! You are a perfect and infallible being. But if you have (like the rest of us), you should consider whether deadly weapons that demand extremely high vigilance to safely operate belong in the hands of just any untrained and untested person who wants one.
X-Rap
Member
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2006
- Messages
- 6,657
Wow, so now Glocks are expert guns???
Any firearm is susceptible to a moment of fallibility, do you really think the grip safety on the gun of topic will keep a child safe? With a 4# - 1/8" trigger stroke? How about a revolver with a similar trigger that gets cocked.
Any innocent that gets hurt by any reason is tragic and relying on some safety lever to cover for negligence is irresponsible.
Any firearm is susceptible to a moment of fallibility, do you really think the grip safety on the gun of topic will keep a child safe? With a 4# - 1/8" trigger stroke? How about a revolver with a similar trigger that gets cocked.
Any innocent that gets hurt by any reason is tragic and relying on some safety lever to cover for negligence is irresponsible.
gc70
Member
Please share with everyone the amount of training and testing that is necessary to have a gun.
I don't think a grip safety will keep a child safe, nor was that implied. Guns are not for children to play with.
Do I think that a 1911 with the safety on or a DA trigger is less likely to fire in a small child's hands? Of course. They are also less likely to fire when holstering or drawing or field stripping.
More than zero?
And before you get your panties in a wad, that opinion is NOT the same as saying "there ought to be a law". Gun owners and the gun industry should demand more training of us than "zero".
- Status
Similar threads
