Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 5/31/2003 2:57:10 PM EDT
What are the downsides of carrying a 1911 w/a round in the chamber and hammer down?

Thanks!
Link Posted: 5/31/2003 3:11:36 PM EDT
Well, you would have to draw, cock the hammer, then fire.

My hands are not huge, so cocking the hammer is much easier with my off hand. I cannot keep a good grip on the gun and cock it with my strong hand. Sounds like it would slow you down - a lot.
Link Posted: 5/31/2003 3:16:20 PM EDT
shadowblade hit the nail on the head.
Link Posted: 5/31/2003 4:09:23 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SGB:
shadowblade hit the nail on the head.




I just looks scary to me...I guess with further practice I'll get comfortable...and I'll also practice thumbing the hammer back too.
Link Posted: 5/31/2003 4:20:24 PM EDT
If its a gun without a firing pin safety, you will have the hammer sitting directly on the firing pin. A blow to the hammer could be sufficient enough to cause a discharge. On guns like the Colt Series 80's and Para-Ords, by lowering the hammer manually, you have by-passed the firing pin safety and set up the same situation.

Carrying cocked and locked is less dangerous.
Link Posted: 5/31/2003 4:22:31 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Lumpy196:
If its a gun without a firing pin safety, you will have the hammer sitting directly on the firing pin. A blow to the hammer could be sufficient enough to cause a discharge. On guns like the Colt Series 80's and Para-Ords, by lowering the hammer manually, you have by-passed the firing pin safety and set up the same situation.

Carrying cocked and locked is less dangerous.



Is a Springfield UltraCompact a Series 80 or 70?

Thanks guys
Link Posted: 5/31/2003 4:32:32 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/31/2003 4:33:24 PM EDT by Lumpy196]
Only Colt and Para-Ordnance offer the Series 80 style safety (Colt's by patent, Para uses it under an agreement).

Kimber IIs have a Swartz-type fireing pin safety.

All of the other makers use the original 1911 non-safetied firing pins.
Link Posted: 5/31/2003 4:53:06 PM EDT
So I guess it's cocked and locked or an empty chamber in the Springfield.
Link Posted: 5/31/2003 5:37:56 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/31/2003 5:39:13 PM EDT by KODoc]
Because of liability concerns no major law enforcement agency issues SA semi-autos, with the exception of the certain SWAT outfits and the HRT which operates under unique liability circumstances.

Cooking off an AD with a SA under moments of extreme stress resulting in lost fine motor coordination is enough of a risk without having to fumble with cocking a hammer, especially more coat-liner and web of hand friendly burr hammers.
Link Posted: 5/31/2003 5:47:11 PM EDT
Well so much for using a 1911 for ccw...I guess it's back to the G27 or Makarov.
Link Posted: 5/31/2003 6:41:55 PM EDT
W-W, check the website www.sightm1911.com
Go to care & use...then "the conditions"
Condition 2 (hammer down on a live round) is bad news.
I'm not totally comfy with cocked & locked myself.
My remedy, though some may not agree with it, is the SA/DA types...Sig, S&W, CZ, to name a few. (live round, hammer down, ready to fire in DA)
I enjoy the 1911 for what it is but do not consider myself trained enough to carry C&L.
Link Posted: 5/31/2003 6:53:27 PM EDT
WW, I've been carrying a 1911 cocked and locked since 1977 and never have I had a problem.

Glocks have a cocked striker you just can't see it.
Link Posted: 5/31/2003 7:07:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SGB:
WW, I've been carrying a 1911 cocked and locked since 1977 and never have I had a problem.

Glocks have a cocked striker you just can't see it.



There it is right there. I feel safer carrying a 1911 with a manual safety, a grip safety and depending on the model, a firing pin safey, then I do with a Glock with a factory 5lb connector.
Link Posted: 6/1/2003 4:48:51 AM EDT
I've carried my BHP cocked and locked with no loss of "comfort". Either cocked and locked or hammer down on an empty chamber is the only two ways to have a M1911 type IMO. That way you avoid the confusion of whether you have one in the chamber. If the hammer's down, you know you have to rack the slide to get it running, and if the hammer's up, you're ready to fire. If you start messing with hammer down, you may wind up thumb cocking to find an empty chamber.

Hammer down, as noted, is quite a bit more dangerous due to the firing pin, etc. Thumb cocking....well, why not just carry a Peacemaker? At least it was designed for it. Seems like a whole lot of manipulation to be carrying out successfully when your life is on the line and you're trying to kill someone.

Of course I carry a revolver, so what do I know

Ross
Link Posted: 6/1/2003 6:12:04 AM EDT
It's pretty funny because with all the comments it leads me back to where I started. An E German Makarov That's been fluffed and buffed by Geoff Beneze of Beast-Enterprises in a Milt Sparks SSII.
Link Posted: 6/1/2003 6:30:55 AM EDT
The main down side is that is not the way Mr Browning designed it to be carried.
Link Posted: 6/1/2003 7:21:57 AM EDT

Originally Posted By W-W:
It's pretty funny because with all the comments it leads me back to where I started. An E German Makarov That's been fluffed and buffed by Geoff Beneze of Beast-Enterprises in a Milt Sparks SSII.



That's a hard to better combination. You can use any decent gun, it's all about what's in your head that matters.

Ross
Link Posted: 6/1/2003 7:32:38 AM EDT
Yup, It's train,train and TRAIN.

And your head needs to absolutely positively accepting of the concept of the use of deadly force to save yourself and family.
Link Posted: 6/2/2003 8:18:25 AM EDT
A paragraph from the BHP owner's manual...
7 "Ease the hammer against the inertia firing pin".
The hammer is now in the dropped position-- the recommended carrying position".
Similar weapon, differing opinions.
It goes on to say..."This is the recommended carrying position of the pistol whether there is a round in the chamber or not".
THEN, just below that, it states..."DO NOT CARRY A ROUND IN THE CHAMBER".
Strangly enough, there is no mention of a C&L carry mode, that I found.

That's very true about training, but shooting different handguns every week, I think, may even confuse someone moderately trained in one type of handgun...kinda familiar with all, but master of none, so I try to be cautious.
Plus, no carry option here.
Link Posted: 6/2/2003 8:46:41 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Lumpy196:

Originally Posted By SGB:
WW, I've been carrying a 1911 cocked and locked since 1977 and never have I had a problem.

Glocks have a cocked striker you just can't see it.



There it is right there. I feel safer carrying a 1911 with a manual safety, a grip safety and depending on the model, a firing pin safey, then I do with a Glock with a factory 5lb connector.



1911s are great race and range guns but, in today's era of DA and DAO semi-autos, it's becoming increasingly difficult to justify, from a civil liability standpoint, SA semi-autos for CCW use. I will admit that an argument can be made that an LEO has a greater risk of AD scenarios since he draws down on a suspect as opposed to a civilian who draws usually to fire and not apprehend. Still prefer modern, accurate, reliable out of the box, non-modified DA or DAO for carry.

The Glock with the 5 # trigger is probably even more of a hazard, which is why my 19 has the NY trigger installed.
Link Posted: 6/2/2003 4:15:57 PM EDT

1911s are great race and range guns but, in today's era of DA and DAO semi-autos, it's becoming increasingly difficult to justify, from a civil liability standpoint, SA semi-autos for CCW use


News to me. Is this substantiated by anyone or anything of substance or just an opinion?
Link Posted: 6/3/2003 5:13:34 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/3/2003 3:29:19 PM EDT by KODoc]

Originally Posted By SGB:

1911s are great race and range guns but, in today's era of DA and DAO semi-autos, it's becoming increasingly difficult to justify, from a civil liability standpoint, SA semi-autos for CCW use


News to me. Is this substantiated by anyone or anything of substance or just an opinion?



It's a substantiated opinion.

There is not one major law enforcemenet agency that issues SA autos (except some SWAT and FBI's HRT who play by different rules than you and I). It has been argued multiple times by plaintiffs' attorneys (of families of the permanently disabled or deceased), sometimes successfully sometimes not, that the righteous shoot was in fact an AD brought about by the short, light trigger pull of a SA auto. If you are involved in a shooting, chances are you will be sued. PD's don't want to add one more possible point for the plaintiff to argue or raise. A private insured citizen becomes a deep pocket target as well.

Do a search on articles by Mas Ayoob for fast references.

Case law searches while more time consuming might also be enlightening.

If you are comfortable with carrying a SA auto and have received documented instruction in same, or compete with one regularly, your attorney can make an argument in your favor that despite LEOs non-use of the SA auto for training and liability reasons, in your hands it's perfectly safe. Hopefully, that argument will be accepted.

If you have little to lose monetarily by way of a lawsuit, don't mind mid to upper 5 figure legal fees if you do have assets worth prorecting, have a criminal defense attorney brother-in-law who will take your case pro bono, or you just can't imagine carrying anything other that what great grandpop carried in WWI, by all means carry it.

Let's face it, unless you live in a high crime area, work at a Stop N' Rob, or refuse to retreat from potential conflict ("An Armed Society Is A Polite Society") you're probably never going to have too pull the 'Ol Slabside anyway.



Link Posted: 6/3/2003 6:02:38 AM EDT
I don't see how accidently shooting someone that I should have shot is any worse than purposefully shooting someone that I should have shot.

Now about lowing the hammer onto the firing pin. Since it's an inertial firing pin, that means that it's too short to be touching the hammer and primer at the same time. Once the hammer hits it, inertia carries it into the primer. With that being said, if the gun were dropped, what does it matter if the hammer is lowered onto the pin or not?

The reason why I've heard not to have the hammer down on a live round is because in order to get the hammer down, you have to pull the trigger. This violates one of the big rules of gun safety.
Link Posted: 6/3/2003 7:27:55 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/3/2003 7:28:45 AM EDT by KODoc]

Originally Posted By Johnphin:
I don't see how accidently shooting someone that I should have shot is any worse than purposefully shooting someone that I should have shot.



If it can be argued that the shooting was accidental, eg: You drew your gun and the assailant backed off, but you were stressed out, lost fine motor control, and cooked off a round you are now open to civil as well as criminal litigation.

If he attacked you and now he's dead, maybe it's not as much of a problem.

(If it WAS an AD you just killed a guy that was no longer a lethal threat.)

If he's maimed,it's your word against his, perhaps with the help of some of his homey "witnesses" backing up his side of the story.
Link Posted: 6/3/2003 7:42:26 AM EDT

Originally Posted By KODoc:

Originally Posted By Johnphin:
I don't see how accidently shooting someone that I should have shot is any worse than purposefully shooting someone that I should have shot.



If it can be argued that the shooting was accidental, eg: You drew your gun and the assailant backed off, but you were stressed out, lost fine motor control, and cooked off a round you are now open to civil as well as criminal litigation.

If he attacked you and now he's dead, maybe it's not as much of a problem.

(If it WAS an AD you just killed a guy that was no longer a lethal threat.)

If he's maimed,it's your word against his, perhaps with the help of some of his homey "witnesses" backing up his side of the story.



Unfortunately, in our society, I can see your point. Of course, I guess they could also argue that he backed off, and you intentionally shot him anyways.

How do you think that they view the Springfield XD? That's what I have, and it's technically single action. Not a very light pull though.

Some people would argue that you should just go ahead and shoot them multiple times in order to get rid of litigation. I believe that this is the opinion of the author of "Living with Glocks." Still, I don't know that I would kill someone with multiple shots if they were sufficiently stopped with one shot and were still alive. I'm speculating that I wouldn't.
Link Posted: 6/3/2003 2:24:11 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/3/2003 3:17:42 PM EDT by KODoc]

Originally Posted By Johnphin:

Originally Posted By KODoc:

Originally Posted By Johnphin:
I don't see how accidently shooting someone that I should have shot is any worse than purposefully shooting someone that I should have shot.



If it can be argued that the shooting was accidental, eg: You drew your gun and the assailant backed off, but you were stressed out, lost fine motor control, and cooked off a round you are now open to civil as well as criminal litigation.

If he attacked you and now he's dead, maybe it's not as much of a problem.

(If it WAS an AD you just killed a guy that was no longer a lethal threat.)

If he's maimed,it's your word against his, perhaps with the help of some of his homey "witnesses" backing up his side of the story.



Unfortunately, in our society, I can see your point. Of course, I guess they could also argue that he backed off, and you intentionally shot him anyways.

How do you think that they view the Springfield XD? That's what I have, and it's technically single action. Not a very light pull though.

Some people would argue that you should just go ahead and shoot them multiple times in order to get rid of litigation. I believe that this is the opinion of the author of "Living with Glocks." Still, I don't know that I would kill someone with multiple shots if they were sufficiently stopped with one shot and were still alive. I'm speculating that I wouldn't.



I'm not sure what the take up and release is like on your Springfield.

Glocks presented the problem of a light take up and a 5 # trigger.

The NY State Police were interested in the Glock but didn't want that light of a trigger. Consequently, the "NY Trigger" was developed by Glock to get that lucrative contract.
It features a firm take up and approximately an 8# trigger. An even heavier pull of 10# is available, but at some point it helps to be able to hit your target.

The NY trigger was, and may still be, available retrofitted to civilian guns. (I had it retrofitted free of charge from Glock when I purchased new my early version 19).

I'd feel comfortable that a defense attorney could defend my choice since I took the steps to render my firearm identical (except for 19 v. 17) to the safety and liability conscious NY State Police.
Link Posted: 6/3/2003 3:23:20 PM EDT
I've shoot 1911's for years and I must say that now cocked and locked is the only normal way I carry. W-W to answer your question the Springfield would compare with the 70 series Colt as far as internal safeties go. You must remember the 1911 when cocked and locked does have a thumb and a palm safety and is not nearly as liable to go off unexpectedly as a lot of other weapons. I own a Glock too and I feel a lot saver using the Colt.

Like you said practice practice and more practice and in the end only you can decide how to carry the Springfield. There was a time way back when I carried hammer down on a empty chamber and felt comfortable that way. Only you can decide.
Link Posted: 6/3/2003 5:45:45 PM EDT
I'm Sorry KODoc I can't buy into it. I carried a cocked and locked 1911 as an LEO for many years. Although not with a "MAJOR" department. I've never had an AD either on or off duty, nor in the years since.

Carrying a firearm for self defense is a serious decision. Hopefully those who make the choice to carry will put forth the effort to become competent in their choice of weapons and training. Those that don't and make a bad call deserve what they get.

ALL Current training is finger off the trigger until you are ready for an intentional shot. Doesn't matter if you're using your DAO automatic, Custom Wilson CQB or GREAT GRANDPA'S four screw hand ejector .38S&W. FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER following this guideline the shooting will be intentional. You must then be damn well able to justify it. Type of weapon carried be damned.

If/when you have to use your weapon you will be placed under the most intense scrutiny imaginable and almost guaranteed to be sued. If that scares you good it should.

If it makes you indecisive your gonna die, so don't worry about what you're carrying or better yet why bother to carry anything. After All the "MAJOR LE agencies all tell you not to resist. Don't try to defend yourself, you might get hurt. And we know that they know best after all. They are here to protect us right? Even if the US Supreme
court says that they don't have to. Right?

Bottom line as I see it is this............ The problem's not the choice of weapon, it's not the choice to defend your self. It's all the other choices involved that make you justified or not in the choice of the first two.
Link Posted: 6/3/2003 6:03:30 PM EDT

Originally Posted By KODoc:

Originally Posted By Lumpy196:

Originally Posted By SGB:
WW, I've been carrying a 1911 cocked and locked since 1977 and never have I had a problem.

Glocks have a cocked striker you just can't see it.



There it is right there. I feel safer carrying a 1911 with a manual safety, a grip safety and depending on the model, a firing pin safey, then I do with a Glock with a factory 5lb connector.



1911s are great race and range guns but, in today's era of DA and DAO semi-autos, it's becoming increasingly difficult to justify, from a civil liability standpoint, SA semi-autos for CCW use. I will admit that an argument can be made that an LEO has a greater risk of AD scenarios since he draws down on a suspect as opposed to a civilian who draws usually to fire and not apprehend. Still prefer modern, accurate, reliable out of the box, non-modified DA or DAO for carry.

The Glock with the 5 # trigger is probably even more of a hazard, which is why my 19 has the NY trigger installed.



If you can not justify carring a S/A autoloader. Then why are you carrying anything? The same justification for carrying a glock can be used for carrying any other gun. In fact, you would be better able to justify a 1911 then a Glock. Especially when you point out that, with the exception of your mind, the Glocks safety is on the trigger.

Then point out the grip safety and thumb safety of the 1911.

Please do not fall into the gun lethality issue. All guns are lethal.
Link Posted: 6/3/2003 6:44:36 PM EDT
Glock's striker is not at full cock until the trigger is pulled to the rear. At rest it is at a "1/2" cock and the act of pulling the trigger completes the full cock. They are very safe pistols with a "finger grip" safety and several internal actions needed to discharge. The reason for their " unique" trigger pulls. Carrying a 1911 loaded with the hammer down is a risky condition getting it there and carrying it there. Not an option. My 1911 does NOT have a firing pin safety and that pin will move forward if given the opportunity. A 1911 is a simple pistol but not for the simple minded.
Link Posted: 6/3/2003 6:49:02 PM EDT
SGB: For the purposes of this discussion the assumption is made that the armed citizen has, prior to ever having worn a weapon, made the decision to use lethal force should the need arise.

Nor do I dispute that one's finger must be off the trigger until the moment the decision to fire is made, as brief a time interval as that may be.

The argument is one that has led to the adoption of DA and DAO sidearms by all major LE agencies for reasons that transcend their typically greater magazine capacity, which is the potential liability issue.

While an LEO who shoots an assailant will be under close departmental and perhaps media scrutiny he does have the strength of the department to back him up if the shoot is righteous. A private citizen bears the entire weight of the cost of defense and subsequent punitive actions.

I agree that if one is involved in a shooting, one will be sued. Why give the opposition one more point to attempt to sway a jury with?


eagle1911: The screen name is a dead giveaway!

Read my post in this thread regarding the Glocks NY trigger.

I wouldn't carry a Glock without similar modifications either.
Link Posted: 6/3/2003 7:11:51 PM EDT

SGB: For the purposes of this discussion the assumption is made that the armed citizen has, prior to ever having worn a weapon, made the decision to use lethal force should the need arise.



Actually I think we've done a pretty good job of hijacking W-W's post


What are the downsides of carrying a 1911 w/a round in the chamber and hammer down?


Link Posted: 6/3/2003 8:48:57 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/4/2003 5:04:22 AM EDT by Johnphin]
It seems to me that whether the gun has a manual safety and a light trigger, or no safety and a heavy trigger, that either one requires a distinct effort before firing. I find it interesting that so many people argue over the whole double action/single action thing, yet no one seems to complain about using a shotgun for home defence. I think that they're single action too, ya know. I think that the moral of the story is that you should shoot what you can afford and what you can be accurate with, and make sure that your shootings are clearly justified. Shooting someone is not something to be taken lightly, so only do it if it's clear that there is no other way to end the threat. It should be obvious to the investigators whether the person was coming toward you or running away. And if the person had a gun and is even remotely in a position to shoot you, then it shouldn't really matter either way. Just my opinion...
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 5:01:12 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/4/2003 6:03:20 AM EDT by KODoc]

Originally Posted By SGB:

SGB: For the purposes of this discussion the assumption is made that the armed citizen has, prior to ever having worn a weapon, made the decision to use lethal force should the need arise.



Actually I think we've done a pretty good job of hijacking W-W's post


What are the downsides of carrying a 1911 w/a round in the chamber and hammer down?





Maybe so. But, judging from the number of responses he contributed to this thread as he sought information, it doesn't seem to have bothered him all that much.....
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 4:33:49 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SGB:

SGB: For the purposes of this discussion the assumption is made that the armed citizen has, prior to ever having worn a weapon, made the decision to use lethal force should the need arise.



Actually I think we've done a pretty good job of hijacking W-W's post


What are the downsides of carrying a 1911 w/a round in the chamber and hammer down?






Actually this thread is turning out better then I'd hoped!
Top Top