Safety Off Carry

[Good Ol' Boy]

This is not meant to be a belligerent or negligent topic, however it's something that probably get's done more often than not with certain style pistols. Lets try to keep it civil.

I realize this probably pertains to striker fired pistols mainly, but may relate to some 1911 carry folks as well. With the 1911 group I'm certainly not suggesting cocked and not locked, but round in the chamber and hammer down, safety off.

Striker related, and me personally, one of the small pistols I bought has a safety but I don't use it in order to keep things the same as my other non safety striker fired carry pieces. In fact, I wanted the same version of my small pistol without the safety but got the safety equipped model for $200 less. To me, the lack of a safety and mag disconnect were not worth the extra $200. I just carry with the safety off and the disconnect I don't worry about.

Also, this thread doesn't relate well to DA/SA pistols with a decocker/safety, so lets try to leave that alone.


All that being said, what are your thoughts?

 

[RX-79G]

I'm not sure how a 1911 or similar pistol Condition 2 would relate at all to something like a Glock or Shield with one in the pipe.

For a thread on Condition 2 (single action, hammer down) read this thread I started:
https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/single-action-hammer-down.810149/

As for the striker pistols, many of them are pretty much the same as carrying a series 80 1911 with the safety off. "Don't touch the trigger." The 1911 has a half cock to guard against sear bounce and a firing pin block on top of that, and many stock 1911s have triggers of about the same pull weight as a Glock.

 

[cfullgraf]

I realize this probably pertains to striker fired pistols mainly, but may relate to some 1911 carry folks as well. With the 1911 group I'm certainly not suggesting cocked and not locked, but round in the chamber and hammer down, safety off.

In the 1980s, I carried a Colt Mustang with a round in the chamber and the hammer down. I had an issue lowering the hammer once and stopped the practice. Fortunately, I was at my back yard range when it happened and the only casualty was a spot of dirt six to eight feet in front of me.

I currently carry a Walther PPK or S&W j-frame but do not like the DA trigger pull.

While I'm not completely comfortable carrying "cocked and locked", I'm warming to the idea of returning to a small semi-auto like the Mustang, Micro Carry, or Glock 42 as long as the pistol has a firing pin block. The SA pistols would be carried cocked and locked.

 

[DaisyCutter]

I carried an old Ruger P-89 with one in the chamber and the safety off, in the late 1990s. It had a pretty grotesque DA first pull, and I was unenlightened. I wouldn't do that now, for fear something would snag the trigger and pull it just shy of cocking, but enough to put a pill in my butt.

 

[X-Rap]

I reject any comparison of the SA 1911 Trigger to a Striker type.
The trigger weight of two stock guns may be within a pound or two but the length, take-up (of which the 1911 has none) have 0 similarities.

 

[eldon519]

This isn't what you asked but if I'm not mistaken (and I very well may be), during the design of the 1911, the first prototypes were designed without grip or manual safeties. The grip safety came into the design pretty early, but the manual safety was not added until the very end at the request of some branch of the military. Up until then, it was intended to be cocked and unlocked, and the grip safety was intended to protect you. If you can trust your holster to cover and protect the trigger, I suppose you could carry a 1911 cocked and unlocked.

 

[X-Rap]

I don't believe the 1911 was ever intended to be generaly carried cocked without the safety engaged in fact the cocked and locked mode is a later manifestation than any original intent probably first practiced by law men not burdened with a military manual of arms.

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

Up until then, it was intended to be cocked and unlocked, and the grip safety was intended to protect you. If you can trust your holster to cover and protect the trigger, I suppose you could carry a 1911 cocked and unlocked.

Common internet myth that the 1911 was orginally designed to be carried either cocked and locked or cocked and unlocked. It was designed to be carried chamber empty.

 

[JohnBiltz]

Depends on the gun. A 1911, no; the early Shield gets a big yes. A lot of guns get a safety to meet state laws. Its pretty clear from the design of the gun and the safety that the safety is not really designed to be used.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I realize this probably pertains to striker fired pistols mainly, but may relate to some 1911 carry folks as well. With the 1911 group I'm certainly not suggesting cocked and not locked, but round in the chamber and hammer down, safety off.

That's called "Condition 2." Some say that's because it gives you two chances to have a negligent discharge, once when lowering the hammer, and once when cocking it. The Army, way back in 1912, forbade carrying in this condition -- for the Army it was Condition 3 (magazine inserted, chamber empty) or Condition 1 (cocked and locket) if action was imminent.

 

[X-Rap]

Condition 1 was a thing way back in 1912?

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Condition 1 was a thing way back in 1912?

It would not be called "Condition 1" for another 40 years or so, but the Army in the first manual on the pistol, issued the same year the piston was first issued, mandated what today we call "Condition 3" (loaded magazine, empty chamber) for most situations, and what we call "Condition 1" if action was imminent.

 

[RX-79G]

Common internet myth that the 1911 was orginally designed to be carried either cocked and locked or cocked and unlocked. It was designed to be carried chamber empty.

No it wasn't. The 1911, like every other external hammer gun of the time, was meant to be carried with the chamber loaded and the hammer down. Just like the SAA revolver, you cocked the hammer to fire the gun - with one hand because it was designed for cavalry. Browning has multiple patents specifically on making his guns safe to carry hammer down and methods to decock safely with one hand.

How long this method was actually in field use is a different story. But in 1917 the Marines went looking for a 1911 replacement and the Remington M93 was tested and passed - like the Colt 1910, it was a single action that had no manual safety and a large external hammer.


It is completely amazing to me that so many people think Browning and others built both hammerless and external hammer guns, and that manipulating those big external hammers was never part of the plan.

 

[RX-79G]

It would not be called "Condition 1" for another 40 years or so, but the Army in the first manual on the pistol, issued the same year the piston was first issued, mandated what today we call "Condition 3" (loaded magazine, empty chamber) for most situations, and what we call "Condition 1" if action was imminent.

I would like to see that manual.

 

[RX-79G]

I reject any comparison of the SA 1911 Trigger to a Striker type.
The trigger weight of two stock guns may be within a pound or two but the length, take-up (of which the 1911 has none) have 0 similarities.

The 1911 has take up.
http://www.1911forum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=79760

It isn't as much as a Glock, but it is about the same amount as a other safetyless pistols, like the Remington R51.

If there is a line, no one seems to know where it is.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I would like to see that manual.

Go here https://books.google.com/books?id=h...#v=onepage&q=second finger on trigger&f=false

 

[X-Rap]

It would not be called "Condition 1" for another 40 years or so, but the Army in the first manual on the pistol, issued the same year the piston was first issued, mandated what today we call "Condition 3" (loaded magazine, empty chamber) for most situations, and what we call "Condition 1" if action was imminent.

Vern, my understanding of a cocked and locked condition at the pistols inception was to use the safety primarily as an after action safeguard rather than trying to manually decock with the user being on horseback.

 

[X-Rap]

The 1911 has take up.
http://www.1911forum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=79760

It isn't as much as a Glock, but it is about the same amount as a other safetyless pistols, like the Remington R51.

If there is a line, no one seems to know where it is.

Having numerous samples of each I will testify that there is no comparison or mistaking the two trigger designs.
If you disagree with that we really are to far apart to have a conservative conversation.

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

It is completely amazing to me that so many people think Browning and others built both hammerless and external hammer guns, and that manipulating those big external hammers was never part of the plan.

Well, it amazes me that people think that the 1911 was designed around how Browning though a handgun should be instead of to military specifications. The 1911 was built to military specifications. The military specification was for the pistol to be carried in condition 3 and that's how it was carried through it's service life. The external safety was added so that the firearm could be made safe after having been fired but without having to unload it. Only later did it become common practice to carry condition 1, but never in the military

So again, it's a myth that the 1911 was designed to be carried condition 1. That doesn't mean it's not good practice. The F-15 was not designed to drop bombs, but the F-15E is one of the best fighter bombers in the world. That's how things turn out some times.

 

[ATLDave]

So again, it's a myth that the 1911 was designed to be carried condition 1. That doesn't mean it's not good practice. The F-15 was not designed to drop bombs, but the F-15E is one of the best fighter bombers in the world. That's how things turn out some times.

And the inventor of cyanoacrylate (super glue/krazy glue) was trying to invent a clear substance for aircraft canopies and gun sights. The "original intent" may matter when it comes to constitutional law, but it really doesn't have anything to do with mechanical or chemical engineering.

 

[RX-79G]

Go here https://books.google.com/books?id=hs9BAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA16&dq=second+finger+on+trigger&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&hl=en#v=onepage&q=second finger on trigger&f=false

Thank you.

On page 13 it reads:

The grip safety [sic] permits the lowering of the cocked hammer with one hand by automatically pressing down on the grip safety when the hammer is drawn slightly past the cocked position.

While the manual contains a prohibition on carrying in condition 1 for extended periods, it doesn't say that it should be carried chamber empty. What it does offer is a description of how to do the obvious - lower the hammer - in conjunction with Browning's patented hammer lowering grip safety design.

So again, it's a myth that the 1911 was designed to be carried condition 1.

I agree. The 1911 was not designed to be carried in condition 1, but in condition 2, as the manual aptly demonstrates.

The assertion that it must have been condition 3 is due to the lack of imagination where modern people can't believe the military would issue a pistol that required manual decocking. Which, of course, ignores history and the reality of all the other military pistols with no decockers built to be carried hammer down (Beretta 92 first model, CZ-75) and pistols that were had decockers but no DA trigger (Radom, P9).

 

[X-Rap]

Funny how JMB is revered as a genius
for his 1911 design when it was some nameless bureaucrat upon who's insistence its most favored attributes rest.

 

[ATLDave]

If JMB's claim to fame were exclusively based on the 1911, that would, indeed, be funny.

Even if the 1911 had never been created, he would still have the strongest claim to the most important firearms inventor of all time.

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

but in condition 2, as the manual aptly demonstrates.

No, it does not.

The military has never approved in any fashion of Condition 2 carry of autoloading sidearms. Any assertion that the military intended the 1911 to be carried in condition 2 is an absolute fabrication unsupported by history.

lack of imagination where modern people can't believe the military would issue a pistol that required manual decocking. Which, of course, ignores history and the reality of all the other military pistols with no decockers built to be carried hammer down (Beretta 92 first model, CZ-75)

Well, the US army never used the first model Beretta 92 or CZ-75 in any fashion, so your post is pointless.

 

[RX-79G]

Having numerous samples of each I will testify that there is no comparison or mistaking the two trigger designs.
If you disagree with that we really are to far apart to have a conservative conversation.

It has nothing to do with mistaking the two. Functionally, there is no real line between a 6 pound 1911 trigger and 4.5 pound PPQ trigger. One can claim that the amount of take up makes all the difference in the world, but both designs are intolerant of leaving your finger on the trigger because they offer so little resistance. Other than something getting into the trigger guard, there is no drop safety difference between them. They fall into the same category of pistols that require a holster that covers the trigger guard. DA handguns, before the Glock era, did not.

Funny how JMB is revered as a genius
for his 1911 design when it was some nameless bureaucrat upon who's insistence its most favored attributes rest.

This is very true. But more than a nameless bureaucrat, Jeff Cooper took a temporary carry solution and made it a full time method. In so doing he transformed a pistol designed for easy decocking into a gun that is much more difficult to manipulate the hammer at all. Modern 1911 practice makes an external hammer just a vestigial downside.