Designed to be carried Cocked and Locked: Not!

[1911Tuner]

Browning was well aware of manual and/or grip safeties. The 1903 Pocket Model (hammerless) had both. But apparently he didn't believe they were necessary on military pistols that had an exposed hammer.

Which would seem to raise another speculation or two.

Feeling that a pistol with an exposed hammer didn't require a manual safety...and given the disabling design of the half-cock notch...did he also consider half-cock and Condition Two as viable carry options? IMO...Yes...on both counts.

 

[ttheel]

This thread is like the energizer bunny, it just keeps on going and going. Lol!

 

[xXxplosive]

Ref: Combat Handguns, M. Ayoob

No less a legendary Lawman than Wyatt Earp experienced a dropped-gun accidental discharge. In what is probably the most detailed biography of Earp, Wyatt Earp: A Biography of the legend, veteran historian and ackowledged gun expert Lee Silva researched a news clipping from the time, that he quoted Volume 1: The Cowtown Years.
Silva found it in the January 12, 1876 edition of the Wichita Beacon. It read
"Last Sunday night, while policeman Earp was sitting with two or three others in the back room of the Custom House Saloon, his revolver slipped from his holster and falling to the floor, the hammer which was resting on the cap, is supposed to have struck the chair, causing a discharge of one of the barrels(sic). The ball passed through his coat, struck the north wall then glanced off and passed out through the ceiling. It was a narrow escape and the occurrance got up a lively stampede from the room. One of the demoralized was under the impression that someone had fired through the window from the outside."
Silva also gained access to some of Earp's correspondance with his compliant biographer, Stuart Lake, in the late 1920's. He had apparently admitted that it happened when Lake asked him about it, and in a note asked Lake to leave out "the little affray with the chair." Lake complied.
And when Lake's Wyatt Earp, Frontier Marshal did come out a few years later, Earp was emphatically quoted in it as saying professionals would never carry a live round under the hammer of a single-action revolver.

For what it's worth................

 

[OD*]

..........

 

[1911Tuner]

It would appear that my assessment of the half-cock was correct. I had never read this in the patents before...or maybe I did and subconsciously remembered it...but it seems that Browning did, in fact intend for the half-cock to be a functioning safety.

Section 7 in the second paragraph, it states:

"With the hammer drawn to the firing position, should it become necessary to lower it to the safety position without allowing it to contact the firing pin..."

That would have to be the half cocked position.

Go and read it for yourselves.

http://www.google.com/patents?id=Nd...rce=gbs_overview_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=&f=false

 

[SuperNaut]

Looks like a test is in order.

 

[1911Tuner]

What kinda test? What for? Browning's intent was pretty clearly described in the patents...thought I suppose that some will choose not to believe that he understood his own gun.

 

[SuperNaut]

I've read a million times that it is dangerous to have a 1911 at half-cock. A test of how robust it actually is what I'm talking about, for peace of mind and actual data. Actual data trumps a million anecdotal warnings IMO.

 

[1911Tuner]

Wel...Any gun is more dangerous if dropped than not...but that wasn't really the point.
The argument was Browning's intent as to whether the half-cock is, in fact, a safety position. It clearly is. The only question that remains is whether or not you want to use it as one. Like the Condition One/Condition Two/Condition Three argument...it's a matter of choice that Browning provided.

 

[Dream Catcher]

Wel...Any gun is more dangerous if dropped than not...but that wasn't really the point.
The argument was Browning's intent as to whether the half-cock is, in fact, a safety position. It clearly is. The only question that remains is whether or not you want to use it as one. Like the Condition One/Condition Two/Condition Three argument...it's a matter of choice that Browning provided.

withstanding dropping, do that short travel distance in half-cock enough to discharge?

 

[1911Tuner]

withstanding dropping, do that short travel distance in half-cock enough to discharge?

Moot point. With the captive half-cock notch, the hammer and sear are interlocked. The trigger can't move, nor can the sear...and the whole group is disabled until the hammer is returned to full cock. The gun can't be fired from half-cock.

Moot point-2

Why would you engage a safety on a loaded gun...any safety...and start pulling the trigger? Since it's assumed that the purpose of the safety is to prevent firing the gun, that would seem to be one of those things high on the Not-To-Do list.

 

[xXxplosive]

Field Manual 23-35 (1940) pages 11 and 12 of that manual in Section IV, FUNCTIONING, *Method of Operation, section b., where it reads as follows:

"If it is desired to make the pistol ready for instant use and for firing the maximum number of shots with the least possible delay, draw back the slide, insert a cartridge by hand into the chamber, allow the slide to close, then lock the slide and the cocked hammer by pressing the safety lock upward and insert a loaded magazine. The slide and hammer being then positively locked the pistol may be carried safely at full cock and it is only necessary to press down the safety lock (which is located within easy reach of the thumb) when raising the pistol to firing position."


So............what's the question ?

 

[1911Tuner]

So............what's the question ?

Originally...Whether or not the gun was designed specifically with the intent to carry Cocked and Locked. Clearly, it wasn't. It was designed so that it could be, if so desired, be placed in that condition for the purpose of instant readiness with the least possible delay.

Then, it was suggested that the only real safe way to carry one with a loaded chamber is in Condition One, and that both lowering the hammer and half-cocked are not only extremely dangerous and strictly verboten by conventional wisdon...but that the half-cock is not, never was intended to be, and cannot be safely implemented as a per se "Safety Position" which it clearly was by design and intent.

 

[1911Tuner]

Interestingly...and unknown to me previously...in Section 8, lines 105-110...the patent describes an automatic trigger lock that engages and blocks the trigger when the magazine is removed. Apparently, the US Army nixed this feature, and it was subsequently omitted on the gun. My guess is that they wanted to retain the ability to fire it by single-loading in the event of a lost magazine.

Nowhere does it specifically mention the manual safety, nor its intended useage, which was probably self-evident given the fact that it can't be engaged unless the hammer is at full cock. Dated Februrary of 1911, this was an earlier patent and likely amended in later submissions.

 

[Warlokke]

an Army manual on how to use something bears no (as in ZERO) bearing on how or why something was designed. It only tells you how the green machine wants their people to use it.

Ummm....not necessarily. When the Army or any service puts out an operators manual, it is based on a statement of work (SOW) developed by that service and sent out to the developers of the new equipment. With weapons, it will usually specify, or give ranges for, things like caliber, safeties, barrel length, etc. The testing of the manufacturers finished products, if their is a competition or not, is then done based on the operators manual (draft) developed ICW the SOW. This basic process hasn't changed much over the years, just new names and tweaks to minor procedures.

 

[Old Fuff]

Concerning the development of the 1911 pistol, and related manuals, there have been some changes since the first decade of the 20th century, and recent present.

John Browning was retained by Colt to assist in the designing of an automatic pistol with the intention that the principal focus would be to get it adopted by the U.S. (and hopefully other) military forces. In accomplishing this, the inventor would be backed with the total, and at that time considerable, resources of the Colt's Patent Firearms Mfg. Co.

Also at the time (unlike now) the U.S. Army had a professional Ordnance Department, and the Chief of that Department, in this case Gen. William Crozier, had the exclusive authority to pick whatever weapons or weapon systems he chose - regardless of the opinions forthcoming from the combat services - subject only to approval of the Sec. of War. He made sure that officers under his command were active participants in the development/adoption process, and in this sense were equal partners of Colt & Browning.

After the pistol was adopted in 1911, Ordnance Department Officers oversaw the writing of Army Manuals that reflected the tactics, thinking, and practices of that day. Over time these sometimes changed, and the manuals were updated to reflect such revisions. Thus what was done back then (which was the principal focus of the opening post in this thread, and later observations by 1911Tuner) were not always consistent with ideas that came later (particularly those advocated by Lt. Col. J.Cooper, USMCR) who wasn't around at the time.

 

[1911Tuner]

Fuff...Just so. I've maintained for several years that the practice of carrying the pistol full time in Condition One is fairly recent, and was never the specific intent of Browning or the U.S Army. That it can be is incidental to its design...and that the recent rallying cry: "Cocked and Locked, the way that JMB intended" is erroneous and misleading. Browning's intent was to aid in the design of a service pistol that bore the features specified by the U.S. Army...and ultimately...the U.S. Cavalry.

Beyond that, he very likely didn't give a rotund rat's rump how it was carried, and left that criteria up to the Army.

 

[BHP FAN]

''Beyond that, he very likely didn't give a rotund rat's rump how it was carried, and left that criteria up to the Army...''
Instant CLASSIC!
The Mauser pistol had a similar ''cocked and locked'' feature. In my opinion, the intent was stealth. ''racking'' a pistol draws attention when tippy toeing up to someone else's trench.The military,then as now,taught carry with rounds in the mag,not in the chamber.When action is ''imminent'' you are to draw the pistol, then chamber a round, or ''make ready''.then,if you are not already shooting,but know there's a likelihood you soon will be you apply the safety,so you don't trip and fall,fireing the gun,and giving your position away, or worse,shoot your Sergeant in the butt.

 

[1911Tuner]

BHP Fan...Most military weapons did have that feature provided, and often for the reasons that you offered...but maintaining any weapon in an instantly ready condition...even in a war zone...was forbidden except under certain circumstances.

The directive: "Line of departure! Lock and load!" signaled the commitment to an action with no turning back. Then, and only then were the troops authorized to go hot.