• You are using the old High Contrast theme. We have installed a new dark theme for you, called UI.X. This will work better with the new upgrade of our software. You can select it at the bottom of any page.

Why the hammer spur on 1911s?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Z

zahc

Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2003
Messages
1,961
Location
TX
Why do 1911s even have a hammer spur? I see no reason for it, barring cond 2 carry which I hate.
 
If I recall correctly it was a specific requirement of the US military during the final 1911 acceptance trials. The cavalry wanted the ability to thumb-cock the pistol if necessary while on horseback. Evidently the SAA manual of arms was still fresh in their minds at the time. Prior to that John Browning wasn't sure which way the military was going to go so he assembled his prototypes both with and without an exposed hammer spur.
 
I think the spur hammer looks nice. I prefer it, but they slap some people.

I do wonder why the "all business" types don't simply have hammerless 1911s, instead of a commander hammer and a big ol' beavertail. A high-grip safety, sans beavertail, and a flush hammer would be lighter, anyways. Wouldn't look as nice, though.
 
I like having a hammer for the dry-fire capability. Beats the hell out of racking the slide every time.
 
Another Point

Just theory, but probably a valid one...Removing the spur completely
will reduce hammer momentum, making for a lighter firing pin strike,
which may make necessary either a heavier mainspring or a lighter
firing pin rebound spring.

Hmmmm...I detect an experiment in the offing. Anybody wanna get the test results from a bobbed hammer? I've got a couple down there that are useable and expendable...

Tuner the Mad Scientist. bwahahahahaaaaaa
 
What dsk posted, is what I was told / read / taught.

I also told what Tuner alluded to , that being the part about too little momentum = light strikes. I actually heard this in regard to revolvers first.

I remember this stuff, can't remember what I hate for lunch yesterday.

Tuner...must have gotten a new tool to play with...so in the name of science, do you have a MIM hammer you are willing to donate to science? I'm curious if the weight of stock hammers vary , therefore a difference of momentum would exist.

Then part II is if MIM is bobbed does / will the metallury change . Humm... density / weight /strength change once a MIM has metal removed to a "certain degree".
 
Nightcrawler,

I do wonder why the "all business" types don't simply have hammerless 1911s, instead of a commander hammer and a big ol' beavertail. A high-grip safety, sans beavertail, and a flush hammer would be lighter, anyways. Wouldn't look as nice, though.
Click to expand...

Because an upswept beavertail helps funnel your hand into position, keeps your hand from riding up high enough to get bit by the hammer and/or get 'racing stripes' from the slide during rapid shot strings, and a spurless hammer prevents you from decocking the pistol.

When I want pretty looks, I go fondle my S&W wheelguns. ;)
 
If I recall correctly it was a specific requirement of the US military during the final 1911 acceptance trials. The cavalry wanted the ability to thumb-cock the pistol if necessary while on horseback. Evidently the SAA manual of arms was still fresh in their minds at the time. Prior to that John Browning wasn't sure which way the military was going to go so he assembled his prototypes both with and without an exposed hammer spur.
Click to expand...
Thats what I remember hearing.

I also read that it was also ro re-cock a pistol for a "second chance" if the round didnt go off.
 
Keep in mind that the original manual of arms for the 1911 was not cocked and locked. C&L is mostly a post-war invention IIRC. It was also not empty chamber because you can't work a slide one handed (so its practically impossible to put the gun into action on horseback this way). Remember the 1911 is the army's last true cavalry pistol.

The original manual of arms for the 1911 was a loaded chamber (the inertial firing pin was supposed to make this safe) and thumb-cocking before firing. After firing the gun was supposed to be decocked using the spur hammer (like an SAA) or simply safed if too much was going on for that to be practical.
 
and a spurless hammer prevents you from decocking the pistol.
Click to expand...

I keep hearing this but how is this a problem? Are you talking about lowering the hammer over a live round, such as for cond. 2 carry? If so it's MO that one shouldn't ever do that anyway because cond. 2 carry is dangerous and pointless IMO. Both the lowering the hammer and cocking the hammer (probably under stress) strike me as really bad and risky operations. I don't know anybody that does cond. 2, but they all have hammer spurs.

Or lowering the hammer for storage? If so, one can just dryfire.
 
MrAcheson,

Keep in mind that the original manual of arms for the 1911 was not cocked and locked. C&L is mostly a post-war invention IIRC.
Click to expand...

The early manuals I've read state that the weapon is to be charged and placed on safe and then holstered. In rear areas, Condition 3 carry was indicated, IIRC.





zahc,

Long term storage for those who don't like to dry-fire, dry-fire practice for those of us who do, lowering the hammer safely for those who prefer Condition Two carry (regardless of what you and I think about its correctness ;) ), et cetera. Besides, do any minor benefits outweigh removing potential options from your playbook?
 
Manual of Arms

Tamara said:

The early manuals I've read state that the weapon is to be charged and placed on safe and then holstered. In rear areas, Condition 3 carry was indicated, IIRC.

Bingo!

sm...I've got a few hammers that I've taken off various pistols over the
years...for various reasons...and I'll go fish out a serviceable one to
do the test with. Might be a week or so until I can get to the range.
I want to wring it out with about 200 rounds before I'll make a call.
None are MIM.

As for lighter hammers...they do vary, depending on the hammer. Wide
spur hammers vs narrow spur... Slotted Commander vs standard Colt-type. I'd tend to think that the length of the spur would have more to do with the firing pin strike...kinda like a bullet with a higher sectional density (long for the caliber) provides deeper penetration than one with a lower sectional density, but equal weights. (150-grain 7mm vs 150-grain .30 caliber)

I'll get on it and post the results as soon as I can. Now...which pistol do I use? hmmmmm:D
 
Hmmm ...

Hey Tuner, when you're decreasing weight on the hammers, try grinding one spur down to an evil-looking spike. That way when people ask "Why does your 1911 have that spur on the hammer?" you can reply "It's for CQB."
 
Uber Light Hammer

Tamara said:

Cylinder & Slide makes an uber-light, skeletonized, spurless hammer for raceguns, BTW...

Seen those, but always wondered what (if anything) might be necessary
to change for reliable ignition. Raceguns relate to street guns about the same as racecars to a grocery-getter...

We shall see....(he said with an evil grin):evil:
 
Skull Pommel Hammer?

cordex said

Hey Tuner, when you're decreasing weight on the hammers, try grinding one spur down to an evil-looking spike. That way when people ask "Why does your 1911 have that spur on the hammer?" you can reply "It's for CQB

Nah...That might cause me to be politically incorrect. The original lanyard
loop makes a dandy skull pommel and looks harmless.:evil:
 
I'd tend to think that the length of the spur would have more to do with the firing pin strike...
Click to expand...

Now for some reason that rings a bell in the deep recesses of my gray matter.
Hence the
Cylinder & Slide makes an uber-light, skeletonized, spurless hammer for raceguns, BTW
Click to expand...
Runs the gun, because ( for instance on 1911 style 45ACP) springs can /might be 14#'ers , add all the timing, loads to meet PF ....blah blah...

So it is relative. Deviate from original specs and other specs are affected as well, however, some basic 'specs' need to remain same or nearly so.

I get into trouble when I think...I shoot better than I can explain / understand some stuff...not that - that says much. :p
 
Back during the late 1950's some of the bullseye shooters decided they could get faster lock time if they lightened the hammer, and the ideal way too do it was to compleatly remove the spur and grind the back of the hammer to match the slide. Of course, being young and not too bright I had to try it. Well I didn't have any ignition problems, but I also didn't get any noticeable increase in lock time. Any practical effect was zip. I did however get ordered off of some ranges because of what they saw as safety issues. In very short order my pistol was converted back the the regular configuration. There is absolutely no advantage of any kind in removing the hammer spur that I can see. If hammer bite is a problem there are better ways to cure it.
 
Oh, spurless skeleton hammers do reduce locktime. The amount they reduce it by isn't enough to matter to 99.99% of us. There have to be a thousand tweaks you could do to your 1911-based racegun before getting around to needing one.

However, on an umpty-zillion dollar STI squirtgun they'll press for every little advantage they can get...
 
Tuner:

I already ruined a good hammer ( but then I was young and foolish). You can still experiment if you want and report back. It might stop someone else from doing something stupid.
 
Or maybe you could just call Cylinder & Slide and ask them what the kit shaves off the locktime? I believe it's the Warp Speed kit...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

RA40
  • Locked
  • Poll
Bobbed or spur hammer?
Replies
8
Views
1K
RA40
RA40
C
  • Locked
1911 hammer spur length
Replies
3
Views
808
Old Fuff
O
R
  • Locked
Wide spur hammer on series 80? (And where to find a wide spur hammer)
Replies
3
Views
1K
RayTheGreat
R
Gordon
  • Locked
Officer's Model with Spur hammer
Replies
3
Views
573
popeye
popeye
briang2ad
  • Locked
Holding the Hi Power (High Thumbs - spur hammer)
Replies
10
Views
1K
vmr357
vmr357
Back
Top