Carrying 1911 in condition 2

[manta49]

I don't care who calls it what, if it doesn't have second strike capability it's not really a double action. By definition, a double action cocks the action and then releases the firing pin.

Thats what happens in a in a Glock.

Its double action, as double action is described by most experts and handgun manufactures, pulling the trigger pulls bank and releases the trigger/striker. Even if is already partially back like the Gkock. Glock and you can call it you want but it is a double action only handgun IMO. Safe action is something their sales department likely came up with, its a term that could be applied to most modern handguns.

Single-action and double-action refer to how a gun's mechanism operates when the trigger is pulled. The "double" in double-action means the trigger performs two functions: cocking, and then firing the gun. The hammer cannot be manually cocked back; only the pull of the trigger can cause that to happen.

[Stats Shooter]

So then would a DA/SA revolver actually be triple action? Since it also rotates the cylinder?

[Slamfire]

Why would you need to know of a death or injury?

The poster is just moving the goal posts of denial. Deniers do this all the time, you have to prove this, you have to meet this impossible standard, and if you find a case where someone died or was injured, the denier will move the goal posts again.

And mind you, someone has to die. It is not nearly enough to show the pistol can discharge, nope, you have to prove that someone has died. This is a rubbish safety standard, that is nothing is unsafe till someone dies.

Just where is that searchable data for Medical Doctor Malpractice? I guess that means Medical Doctors never commit mistakes or are barred from practice because of malpractice. Where is that searchable data base of people dying from opioid addiction? Down to the names, location, time of death, not the fabricated statistics that I hear from talking heads. I guess that means this whole opioid epidemic is a fraud. I will say, given that everything goes to mandatory arbitration, you are not going to ever find a court case of corporate malfeasance ever again. That's part of the rules of the game, baby, people get hurt, they die, and unless it was you, or someone close, the records are sealed, people will be sued if they talk about the particulars of the case.

Need some opioids for your pain?

I think the best test subject is the denier. If you really don't believe your m1911 will drop fire, then, drop it. Do it on carpet if you are afraid of a scratch. Do it often. Play the game and perfect a technique, such that, when your m1911 hits the floor, it lands muzzle first. Drop it a lot, drop it often, drop it all the time. Make sure you are dropping it shoulder length or higher. Get on the bed, jump up and down, and drop your 1911 on the floor. Yee haw!

Tell us if you die. Or at least, have someone tell us if you die.

[44 AMP]

There is an old story, been floating around longer than I have, which MAY have been based on a real event, or could be just so much "barracks rumor", I have no way of telling, but I'll recount it here, just for consideration.

the story goes that back in the 20s (or the 30s) a loaded .45 was dropped, fell down a steel ladder (or onto the steel deck) fired, and a sailor was killed by the ricochet. The Navy investigated, and determined that while the pistol could go off in a "freak accident" that fact did not constitute an unacceptable risk.

Apparently, risk assessment in those days was different from what it is now...

I note that no one seemed too bothered by the fact that the 1911A1's inertia firing pin didn't positively prevent 100% the possibility of firing, if the pistol landed in just the right condition. We went through WWII, Korea, and Viet Nam without the "drop safety" of the GI pistol being an issue. As a matter of fact, the GI .45 was considered safer than most other pistols in this regard, because of its inertia firing pin system, which, while not perfect, does a pretty good job, and was as good or superior to virtually all contemporary designs.

I believe Colt created the series 80 firing pin block not out of any need for additional safety, but out of a desire to be able to sell their gun in California after CA adopted their (ridiculous, IMO) drop safety standards.

100% drop safety has since become a selling point (after all, who can argue with making things more safe, right?) and like seat belts and air bags in cars, something the public never realized it needed, until it did.

Eventually, they made seatbelts the law. CA (and a couple other places, I think..) made it the law that if your gun doesn't pass their tests, you can't sell it there.

Sometimes, its possible to change a product to meet arbitrary state requirements. SOMETIMES, that change may even be an improvement. And, sometimes, its not.

[In The Ten Ring]

The firearm operator is responsible for any discharges, that's the way I learned it. Doesn't matter how or what happened, it's the operator's fault.

[Stats Shooter]

44AMP:


When I was in the Navy about 15 yrs ago, we still used the M14 for some things. We carried it condition 3 due to a free floating firing pin and accidental discharges.

[NMC_EXP]

A couple of questions:

--My 1911 is an early one with an 88xxx s/n made pre WW1 as I recall. I use a Bianchi #19 leather under hammer style holster. Carried in this holster condition 1 the thumb safety disengages itself. Does this indicate the thumb safety needs some work or is this typical?

--Whats the difference between a rifle or a sidearm and a "platform"?

[Chui]

Originally Posted by Slamfire

The poster is just moving the goal posts of denial. Deniers do this all the time, you have to prove this, you have to meet this impossible standard, and if you find a case where someone died or was injured, the denier will move the goal posts again.



And mind you, someone has to die. It is not nearly enough to show the pistol can discharge, nope, you have to prove that someone has died. This is a rubbish safety standard, that is nothing is unsafe till someone dies.



Just where is that searchable data for Medical Doctor Malpractice? I guess that means Medical Doctors never commit mistakes or are barred from practice because of malpractice. Where is that searchable data base of people dying from opioid addiction? Down to the names, location, time of death, not the fabricated statistics that I hear from talking heads. I guess that means this whole opioid epidemic is a fraud. I will say, given that everything goes to mandatory arbitration, you are not going to ever find a court case of corporate malfeasance ever again. That's part of the rules of the game, baby, people get hurt, they die, and unless it was you, or someone close, the records are sealed, people will be sued if they talk about the particulars of the case.



Need some opioids for your pain?



I think the best test subject is the denier. If you really don't believe your m1911 will drop fire, then, drop it. Do it on carpet if you are afraid of a scratch. Do it often. Play the game and perfect a technique, such that, when your m1911 hits the floor, it lands muzzle first. Drop it a lot, drop it often, drop it all the time. Make sure you are dropping it shoulder length or higher. Get on the bed, jump up and down, and drop your 1911 on the floor. Yee haw!



Tell us if you die. Or at least, have someone tell us if you die.

That's HILARIOUS!

But I do know that a properly fitted 1911 pistol is safe cocked and locked.

You could throw it HARD across a room and it's fine.

I once read it would have to fall 60+ feet on its muzzle to overcome the inertia of the firing pin.

I like Springfield Armory and it used the lighter 9mm firing pin.

If I fell fifty feet I'd have many more things to worry about than my 1911 discharging.

[GunFickle]

Carry a 1911 in either condition 1 or condition 3. Condition 2 is dangerous as you must manually de-cock the hammer which can easily slp and result in an accidental discharge. This is pretty much what my Colt 1911 manual says.

[44 AMP]

When I was in the Navy about 15 yrs ago, we still used the M14 for some things. We carried it condition 3 due to a free floating firing pin and accidental discharges.

Did the Navy use the M16/M4 for anything at that time? How were they carried?

How about any, and every other small arm?

I got out of the Army almost 40 years ago, and standing orders back then were chamber empty. For everything. It was about the risk of accidental discharge, but had nothing to do with floating firing pins.

There is a slight risk of discharge when loading the chamber of an M14. The free floating firing pin does bounce off the primer when the bolt closes. If you are not using milspec primers, there is a slight risk. I've never had CCI 200s go off from it, but one can clearly see where the primer was struck by the pin when the round was chambered. Milspec ammo uses a harder primer cup, and one seldom sees where the pin strikes the primer when chambering. Its that much of a difference.

The M16 series also uses a floating firing pin. While there isn't any specific known risk in that design, it too should only be chambered with the muzzle in a safe direction. Same rule for ALL firearms!!!

The 1911 design does NOT use a floating firing pin. It uses an inertia firing pin. The firing pin is substantially shorter than the distance it must travel to strike the primer, AND there is a spring around the pin that must be compressed by the pin, in order to reach the primer. It is a much different system, mechanically, than the M14 or the M16.

The empty chamber orders were adopted a long, long time ago, to reduce the risk of accidental discharges, from all causes not because of one or two weapons design quirks, but because the majority of our military consists of young men, often without "adult" supervision. A certain percentage of them will act like idiots. If you let them run around with rounds in their chambers (absent dire need), they WILL screw off and bad things will happen.

I'm not disparaging our troops. I was one. Seen it first hand, DONE some of it (though not with loaded weapons, was a bit smarter than that, even back then).

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by Chui

That's HILARIOUS!

But I do know that a properly fitted 1911 pistol is safe cocked and locked.

You could throw it HARD across a room and it's fine.

I once read it would have to fall 60+ feet on its muzzle to overcome the inertia of the firing pin.

I like Springfield Armory and it used the lighter 9mm firing pin.

If I fell fifty feet I'd have many more things to worry about than my 1911 discharging.

We have links in this thread that show testing results where there are discharges well below 50 ft.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stats Shooter]

Did the Navy use the M16/M4 for anything at that time? How were they carried?

How about any, and every other small arm?

44AMP

Yes, I carried a Mk18 when I was doing MIO boarding in the red sea and Persian gulf. Condition 3 for the rifles during staging, condition 1 at some point either in transit or during insertion (whenever we got the order).

The Beretta M9 was always carried With a round chambered but it is a SA/DA pistol with decocking safety. When we requested to switch over to th G22 due to salt water issues in the M9, we carried it chambered as well.

[Slamfire]

There is an old story, been floating around longer than I have, which MAY have been based on a real event, or could be just so much "barracks rumor", I have no way of telling, but I'll recount it here, just for consideration.

the story goes that back in the 20s (or the 30s) a loaded .45 was dropped, fell down a steel ladder (or onto the steel deck) fired, and a sailor was killed by the ricochet. The Navy investigated, and determined that while the pistol could go off in a "freak accident" that fact did not constitute an unacceptable risk.

Apparently, risk assessment in those days was different from what it is now...

Risk assessment was different in those days. Our current product liability practice began to take legal shape in the 1940's You can read about it in Wiki: Product liability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_liability

This case is worth reading about to understand how Product liability changed, and needed to change

Escola v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escola...la_Bottling_Co.

Basically, it is reasonable for a Waitress to pick up a Coke bottle, out of a rack, only to have it explode and injury her for life?

What is very important about American product liability is the concept of strict liability and you can read about that in the Product Liability article.

To show how things have changed, let us remember the 1,000,000 low number 03 Springfields that the Army built. The Army knew it had 03's blowing up on the firing line, because in print, we have a report from the Arms and the Man in 1917

11 August 1917 In Defense of “the Short Gun” Capt James H. Keough

…it takes but very little alteration to put the man behind the gun in a dangerous position, as I can attest, by having experienced the misfortune of blowing both locking lugs from the bolt of my service rifle in the 900 yard stage of the Leech Cup Match at Camp Perry, in 1913, which fortunately did me no more harm than to record a goose egg for my first record shot at this distance, forcing me from the match and putting me out of the running for the Palma Team. The shock of the blow-back had no serious effect on my nervous system, as I was well hardened to the echo of the boiler shop (as the shed in which the International Meter Matches were held was dubbed) by being a daily contestant in the several matches. On this same day on which this accident occurred at team mate, Col. Sergt. Leary, of the Massachusetts Infantry, had a similar accident, but was slightly bruised about the face. The cause of these blow-ups was attributed to the bolts being too hard or burned in the case hardening process. Last year at the annual encampment of the 6th Massachusetts Infantry, at Martha’s Vineyard, a blow back put a sergeant of one of the companies in the hospital for a week and nearly cost him the loss of one eye, and I know another case nearby when two bad accidents occurred in one afternoon, the rifles being blown to pieces in both instances and one of the men having the side of his face torn away. These are the only cases that I recall as happened in my locality or where I was at the time. Records of many others are well known, so that perhaps there is some cause for this alarm as to the safety of the Enfield*, which we all know is not as strong as the U.S. Magazine rifle; but I have not the slightest doubt that when our U.S. Ordnance experts have made the necessary changes that the modified Enfield will be capable of handling our U.S. ammunition with every degree of safety to the man behind the gun.

* Information had not reached the shooting community that the 1917 Enfield was a different action from the SMLE.

How about having your face blown off, make you feel comfortable behind an Army rifle?

This is the official Army position about the 03

Arms and the Man, Brig Gen Fred H. Phillips Jr 8/25/1917

Blown Blots and Split Barrels

Recently there have been reported from rifle clubs several cases where the barrels of Army rifles have burst and where bolts have blown out.
To those who are not familiar with the circumstances attending these accidents-none of which fortunately have cost human life- the mishaps have suggested that possibly the Springfield rifle is an unsafe arm, and that practice with it may be attended by fatalities.

The truth of the matter is that the Springfield is quite as safe as any high powered rifle, and possibly a much more reliable gun than one could expect from a weapon the charge of which exerts 50,000 pounds per square inch pressure in the chamber. The reason why one hears more of “blow-ups’ in the Springfield is that more rifle club members use this arm than use any other one make of commercial weapon, and consequently, in point of number, although not necessarily in point of numbers, although not necessarily in point of percentage, the accidents from the military type rifle may appear greater.
Emphatically the Springfield is not an unsafe gun. As it comes from the arsenal, it can be used year in and year out and so far as the likelihood of accidents is concerned, be as good as ever-but provide that it is properly handled and properly cared for.

If one takes the trouble to inquire into the causes of accidents with the Springfield, it will more than likely result in the conclusion that 99 our of 100 mishaps such as blown bolts and split barrels result either from the use of hand-loads or special loads improperly or carelessly put together in the making, greased chambers, or both.

In short, there nothing the matter with the Springfield as long as it is used for the ammunition for which it was designed, except of course in the very small percentage of cases where a bolt has been over hardened or some similar mechanical defect has crept in during manufacture.

Well, that is the Army official position. The M1903 is fine, does not break any more often than any other rifle, and, if it does, is all the user's fault.

Incidentally, this report was floating around,

Report of Tests of Metals and Other Materials made in Ordinance Laboratory at Watertown Arsenal Mass, Fiscal Year 1918, War Department Document 901, 338 pp.
https://books.google.com/books/reade...er&pg=GBS.PA25

I have copied a few of the Watertown summaries. Some maybe duplicative of those in Hatcher’s Notebook, I invite posters to point out the duplicates.

Examination of Receivers from United States Rifles Model of 1903, burst during Navy Target Practice

Conclusions:
One of the receivers was neither case hardened nor heat treated. It was in the perlitic condition as shown by the micrographs. The structure was very coarse.

Examination of United States Rifle, Caliber 30, Model of 1903, which failed at Camp Greene NC
Conclusions.
The receiver of this rifle had not been properly heat treated prior to being put in service. Microscopic examination showed the metal to be very coarsely crystalline and the structure was that obtained by cooling at a fairly rapid rate from a high temperature. The metal was very brittle under impact, as evidenced by its being readily broken when struck a light blow with a hammer.

Broken Bolts from United States Rifle, Caliber 0.30 Model of 1903
Object: The object of this investigation was to make a complete examination of these two bolts and if possible determine the cause of failure.

Conclusions: It is the conclusion of this laboratory that the failure of both of these bolts is due to the same factor. Both were very hard and brittle and their resistance to sudden impact was very low, as could be ascertained by securely fastening the metal in a vise and striking light blows with a hammer. the brinell hardess number on one of these was 430 and on the other it was 489. these structure of both was martensitic. This structure is characteristic of very brittle material The chemical composition of these bolts is not within the specified limits with regard to carbon, manganese, and silicon

Investigation of cause of failure of United States rifle Model of 1903, No 108 448, which failed in target practice at Camp Shelby

Conclusions:
It is the conclusion of the laboratory that the failure of this rifle was due, at least partially, if not entirely to defective material composing the barrel. Chemical analysis shows the phosphorus to be 0.083, which is entirely too high and should not be allowed. The metal is very severely banded or streaked longitudinally, as shown by etching polished sections with Stead's reagent. Nonmetallic inclusions were present in considerable quantity and were greatly elongated in the longitudinal direction of the barrel.

The weakening effect of these streaks, rich in phosphorus and containing a large amount of nonmetallic inclusions is particularly apparent under shock. The brittleness under sudden impact caused by high phosphorus and nonmetallic inclusions, especially when in the banded condition, is without doubt the predominating factor contributing directly to the failure of this rifle. The metal of the receiver was very hard and brittle, as can be at once understood by observing micrograph 4215 at 500 diameters , which shows the structure to be martensitic.

Something is very wrong with the process controls at any factory which ships rifles with un heated treated receivers. That's my opinion.

This was all swept under the Army carpet until two of their low number receivers blew up in an Ammunition plant, and an ammunition tester got a chunk of receiver through his lung. Only then did the Army do anything to up date their equipment and processes in their Arsenals. This when the "double heat treat" receivers started. Which occurred in 1918.

Now, from 1918 on wards, the Army is still issuing those low number receivers, and selling those low number receivers to civilians, and no one, outside of a few in the Ordnance Department, knew of the problems with the first 1,000,000 low number 03's. But, shooters are being hurt, enough of them, that in 1927 the US Army commissions a board to study the low number 03's. The board finds, that even after careful re heat treatment of low number receivers, 33% will still blow up in over pressure conditions. The board recommends scrapping all 1,000,000 low number receivers.

So what does the Army do?. It keeps the rifles in service, until they are worn out, in which case the worn out rifles will have their receivers scrapped at Depot. Or, the rifle blows up in service injuring someone! How would you like to be that guy who has half their face blown off because the Army determined your life and health was worth less than a $40.00 rifle?

That's the attitude of the time. Things are expensive and people are cheap and disposable. We are incidentally, going back to those days. People are getting cheaper and more disposable by the day. I hope you all like the future we have created.

Now, we know bits and pieces of the low number fiasco, we don't know the whole picture. Nor do we really know much if anything about safety incidents within the Army, Navy, and Marines, because, we "don't have a need to know". You may think you know everything, but you actually know next to nothing. You are ignorant of DoD safety incidents because you don't have a need to know and because you don't have a need to know no one is going to educate you, because those who do have a need to know, know that Edward Snowden's apartment is not large enough for two whistle blowers. Safety incident reports within the DoD are only accessible to those with a need to know, that is Safety investigators and to law enforcement. Higher authority determines the access and extent of material available to safety investigators, so access can be taken away if some bright eyed and bushy tailed bunny gets a wild hair.

Now the fact that no one here knows of DoD safety incidents is by design. You are not supposed to know. If someone had a personnel experience, well the 1911 was out of inventory in the 1980's. That was a long time ago. I have buds who are Vietnam era vets, they knew of accidental discharges with handguns. One I remember was stupid, two junior Officer's playing Quick Draw, and one of them had a loaded pistol. But pretty much, the guys who were around when the 1911 was still in service, are getting to be 75 years old. Those who are living. And, basically, none of them are interesting in proving a thing to a wild eyed denier. It’s not worth their time, and if the denier shoots himself, he will have figured it out. It was like arguing with smokers. They denied that smoking caused cancer, had lots of examples of people who lived to be a hundred, who smoked every day, the culture of the time believed that smoking was not only not harmful, but beneficial, etc, etc. Well, guess what, most of those smokers got cancer or emphysema and figured it out in the end.

As for accidents and reporting of accidents by private industry. Private industry does not tell anyone anything about what they are doing, or the problems they are having with their product, unless Congress passes a law and makes them do it. Congress has not passed a law concerning this issue, and won’t.

I am going to say, because the series 70 M1911 can fire if dropped on the muzzle, it has fired. And if it has fired, then the chances are someone did get hurt. If that bothers you too much to carry the thing with a round in the chamber, then, don't carry it with a round in the chamber. Denial is not going to make the bogie man go away. If you still carry the thing with a round in the chamber, understand the risks, act prudently, and be careful. If you do shoot yourself by dropping your own gun, accept the fact you did it to your self. You understood the risks, you did not take all measures to prevent the negligent discharge, and it happened. If someone else is shot, accept the fact you caused it.

[JJ45]

How did John Browning intend his pistol be carried?....Might not be relevant in today's world, just curious, if anyone knows.

[Bill DeShivs]

Condition 2.

[Chui]

Originally Posted by TunnelRat

We have links in this thread that show testing results where there are discharges well below 50 ft.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But I don't buy the 3 ft drop discharge.

Let me quantify: FBI HRT uses Springfield Professional pistols.

I don't believe they will fire from a 3 ft drop.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TunnelRat]

That's great that the FBI HRT uses those. But I fail to see how that proves the pistol can't discharge from a shorter drop.

[Stats Shooter]

Ok, so as the OP I will attempt to summarize


* Biggest concern with condition 2 is decocking
*Condition 1&2 could , unlikely as it might be, discharge if dropped from sufficiently high and at the right angle.
*Condition 3 is thus THE safest way, but slower and probably overly cautious.

We have no official documentation on how Browning meant for it to be carried, and even if we did it would be irrelevant.

But again, the ONLY strong argument against it is needing to decock it on a loaded chamber which could result in AD. The speed of needing to clock the hammer is debatable , as would be needing to rack the slide.

[Koda94]

I'm not entirely against the idea of Condition 2 (C2), just not for belt holster carry. I think there are other situations where C2 could be useful... its certainly much safer with the hammer down and easy to cock when needed. An example could be such as nightstand duty, off body carry or other applications without a holster. But then... I go back and forth with the fact that racking the slide is also virtually the same effort as cocking so why risk being in the habit of lowering the hammer on a live round.

the confusing thing is we have the options.... but I just cant think of any reason to carry other than C1 or just have the pistol in C3 for those other situations.

part of me feels that if Cooper was here today, he would have revised his Conditions of Readiness to be current with modern practices quite a while ago.

[Bill DeShivs]

Guns are inherently dangerous.
Lowering the hammer on a live round is not difficult or particularly dangerous. I feel it's much safer than using a "hammer drop" safety like on many D/A pistols. I have actually seen them break and the gun fire.

[TunnelRat]

Lowering the hammer on a live round is not difficult or particularly dangerous. I feel it's much safer than using a "hammer drop" safety like on many D/A pistols. I have actually seen them break and the gun fire.

I've owned dozens of pistols with decockers. I've never had a decocking failure. Add to that the wide use of firing pin blocks in many pistols and a decocker that results in an AD is a sign of a pistol with serious mechanical issues. I'd bet all the money in my pockets that they are notably less likely to be a problem, statistically, than a person manually lowering a hammer. That's not to say manually lowering a hammer isn't doable.

[44 AMP]

Whether you are lowering the hammer by hand (which absolutely can be done safely, despite the fact that some people fail at it) or using a built in decocker, ALWAYS point the pistol in a safe direction.

Decockers/safeties CAN FAIL. And they can do it in the weirdest ways. It doesn't matter what the odds are, if it happens to you.

It did happen to a friend of mine, in a very unusual way.

And, it was a Walther!! (I'll ask him the exact model again, next time I see him, I keep forgetting.. it was a P5 or a PP super I think, NOT a P.38)

he carried the gun for six months, before discovering the failure, because it was so unusual. He has kind of short fingers, and his habit was to tilt the gun sideways, to easier reach the decocker lever. He always did this, and had no problems.

He was at the range, and a friend wanted to try the gun. Pistol pointed properly downrange, the friend used the decocker to drop the hammer for a DA first shot. The gun fired!

The pistol was tested by several folks at the range, and then taken to a gunsmith, who said he had never seen that kind of thing before, and if he wasn't looking at it in his hands right now, never would have believed it possible.

The pistol had broken, in just such a way that when held at an angle (tilted sideways) the parts lined up and worked, BUT when held normally (straight up and down) the broken parts no longer lined up and didn't work to stop the falling hammer from firing the gun!!!

Never rule out even the most bizarre possibilities and never trust ANY mechanical safety 100%.

[TunnelRat]

Never rule out even the most bizarre possibilities and never trust ANY mechanical safety 100%.

Well yea, the fundamental rules of safety always apply. My point wasn't that they can't fail, but which was more likely.

[Koda94]

I don't see how comparing lowering a functional 1911 hammer to a broken D/A hammer decocker has any relevance to which design is "safer"...

[GunFickle]

Putting your thumb on a cocked hammer, pulling the trigger and slowly lowering the hammer with a live round in the chamber can be done safely? As long as nothing unexpected happens while performing this operation.