|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
October 5, 2012, 06:52 PM | #26 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 12, 2010
Location: GEORGIA
Posts: 196
|
1903 Colt as a concealed carry pistol
With a good holster, Why not?
Love mine! |
October 6, 2012, 07:38 AM | #27 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,446
|
Quote:
|
|
October 6, 2012, 02:47 PM | #28 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 31, 2002
Location: Deep in the Heart of the Lone Star State (TX)
Posts: 2,169
|
If any gun should be brought back into production, it should be the 1903/1908....
__________________
Proud member of Gun Culture 2.0...... |
October 7, 2012, 01:35 PM | #29 |
Member
Join Date: January 20, 2008
Posts: 21
|
Does anyone think that this will ever be brought back into production?
|
October 7, 2012, 03:53 PM | #30 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 11, 2010
Location: Phoenix area
Posts: 1,442
|
My Dad has one in .380. It was given to him years ago because it wasn't working right. Someone put some wood grips on it they made in the garage. Looks like all they had was a hand saw and file to make the kindling they called grips.
My Dad really likes it, and has talked about starting to carry it. I will tell you one thing though. My Sig P238 shoots heck of a pit better. That Colt feels punishing. Don't know how it feels in .32, but if yours is in .380 I would swap it for something else like the Sig. (flame suit on for suggesting trading away a classic Colt) |
October 8, 2012, 05:23 AM | #31 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 21, 2000
Posts: 4,193
|
Ehhh, maybe the crappy grips are the problem?
__________________
Pilot |
October 8, 2012, 05:36 AM | #32 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 19, 2012
Location: Somewhere out there
Posts: 184
|
If you can shoot it well go for it...now as far as keeping one out the chamber is a different story! Hope ya find something that does work though.
__________________
12 Gauge Fury! |
October 8, 2012, 12:21 PM | #33 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 1, 2000
Location: Boise, ID
Posts: 8,518
|
Quote:
A lot of drop-tests, usually on the muzzle to test the inertial firing pin, are conducted some number of feet above a concrete surface; I suspect a lot more impact energy is in play, under those conditions than a mere hammer-drop. I recommend against dropping your gun under all conditions, but dropping a gun on a partially-cocked hammer is not a good idea, and in light of the various safety features of the 1911 that are essentially negated by carrying on half-cock, it's . . . still not a good idea. At half-cock, the gun is less safe than at either full-cock or decocked, but you still have to cock the gun to get it into action; even if it is "safe" it still doesn't make any sense. |
|
October 8, 2012, 01:52 PM | #34 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 21, 2000
Posts: 4,193
|
The grip safety and the thumb safety were requirements made by the U.S. Army under the elements they wanted to contract for in a pistol. John Browning did not have either in his original design. The half cock notch was the logical safety. It is just as safe to carry on the half cock notch as cocked and locked, and certainly safer than hammer down on a loaded chamber.
__________________
Pilot |
October 8, 2012, 02:27 PM | #35 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 1, 2000
Location: Boise, ID
Posts: 8,518
|
Quote:
The gun is not as safe when at half-cock, and in fact, you effectively deactivate a couple of built-in safeties by doing so. See, that's why I said "everyone" knows. |
|
October 8, 2012, 05:01 PM | #36 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 21, 2000
Posts: 4,193
|
^^^^^ That is untrue. There is no less "metal" holding the hammer at half cock than with cocked and locked.
__________________
Pilot |
October 8, 2012, 06:36 PM | #37 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 9, 2007
Posts: 3,101
|
Quote:
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|