TexasCHLforum.com

txinvestigator wrote:I grew up on revolvers back in the late '60s and early '70s. Cocking a revolver would you head slapped by any competent hander or instructor.

Back then, most people were trained to load only 5 shots in a 6-shot revolver, so there was no reason to decock on a loaded cylinder.

Back then, SA shooting with a DA revolver was an accepted practice for target shooters [as it is today]. Because of safety concerns, law enforcement started to train officers to shoot DA only. BTW - The Ruger Blackhawk is a single action revolver.

Back then, I never got head-slapped when I cocked my revolver, so I must have had incompetent NRA-certified instructors.

In order to avoid an AD, a competent instructor should inflict a head slap only after the firing line is clear.

G.C.Montgomery wrote:This is my last post on the Condition 2 subject within this thread.

It's well known that engineers and designers are soemtimes not experts on the practical use of their own creations. Where the 1911 and John Browning are concerned, even if Browning intended it to be carried in Condition 2, we know he wasn’t a professional soldier, police officer or gunfighter.

So in closing, we can debate this subject all day long and never change the minds of those who've made up their minds. But the debate is not for them, it's for the benefit of those who don't know and are seeking answers. YMMV

G.C. - Thanks for the excellent post. Browning designed the 1911 for the soldier, not the police officer or gunfighter. So maybe he didn't anticipate that use. I also agree that the "condition" descriptions invented by Cooper aren't meant to be used outside the scope of the 1911.

Mike1951 wrote:But, and my memory may be failing me again, didn't JMB only add the grip safety at the insistence of the military?

I don't believe this is true. The grip safety is on the Browning's patent for the 1911. The size and shape may have been modified by the military.

rm9792 wrote:Most on this forum seem to be of the opinion that Condition 2 shouldnt exist. I prefer that mode but happily respect their opinions. You aren't going to change any minds as this mindset is decades old. Browning isnt here to ask and while Cooper was well deserving of his reputation he can't speak for everyone and was not right all the time.

I am not trying to change any minds, just have an intellectual discussion, but I feel like so I guess I'll just let it go. I just hate for mis-information to keep getting passed along until it becomes the gospel. My original question can only be answered by Browning, but I was hoping to find something in his papers or other historical document where he discussed it. I just think that if it was that important of a feature in his design he would have announced that "I have invented a new semi-automatic pistol that is designed so that it can be safely be carried cocked and loaded with a round in the chamber."

Later rm9792!

cbr600 wrote:And yet he designed it with a thunb safety...

Yes, the thumb safety was designed to keep the gun from going off when the trigger is pulled. Just because the gun is cocked and has the safety on doesn't mean that it was designed to be carried that way. When the hammer is cocked the safety can be flipped on and off as needed. Again, this has nothing to due with the design respect to carrying condition.

cbr600 wrote:The 1911 has a thumb safety. As designed, the thumb safety can be applied only if the hammer is cocked.
Draw your own conclusions.

You don't need the safety to be on if the hammer is not cocked. It would serve no purpose.

rm9792 wrote:I would like to know what Browning had to say about carry methods. Cooper has his opinions like everyone else and I will not even begin to argue with him but he may have differed from Brownings intent. With a FPB like the Kimbers, Condition 2 is safe from all AD's.

That was my point, I can't find that Browning said anything about the carry method. I don't think that was one of his design concerns. If it were, I would think that he would have stated that as a design goal or feature.

For the purposes of my question, I really don't care about Col Cooper's opinions or what Thunder Ranch is teaching. [It's probably heresy to say that here]. My whole question was about the statement that 1911s were "designed to be carried cocked and locked." That is the statement I am challenging, not the relative merit or safety of carrying in these conditions.

Just like I would say that the Kimber FPBs are designed to be carried in Condition 2. That was one the reasons they put in the FPB. It was an intentional design goal.

Maybe John Browning didn't care, or this forum doesn't care, but I find it an intriguing bit of trivia.

carlson1 wrote:History of the 1911
http://www.sightm1911.com/1911%20History.htm

Thanks, it's an interesting link, but I don't see anything about the design issues I was asking about.

G.C.Montgomery wrote: As you mentioned the Colt Defender and all true 1911s are designed to be carried cocked-n-locked...

Not to pick on you G.C., but I don't see where txbroker made that statement. I have seen this statement made by many others, but I can't find any evidence that John M. Browning designed the 1911 to be carried this way, or any other way, for that matter.

Does anyone have any evidence of this, other than the arguments already presented in this thread? I am not disagreeing with the rational that Condition 1 (locked and loaded) is the best way to carry the 1911, but concluding that it was designed this way is a jump that I can not make. The 1911 was designed to be a military weapon, not for self-defense or police work. Based on this fact, I would conclude that he designed it to be carried in Condition 2 or 3.

Another design issue I have a question about is why does the 1911 have a spurred hammer? What is the purpose of a spurred hammer, if not for cocking or decocking?

I am really curious about this, so if you have any further information I would like to hear it.

EDITED: Sorry, I should have looked closer, but it seems that seeker_two has already commented on this issue and came to the same conclusion.

txbroker wrote:I still guess I am confused. Never shot a deer with a 30:06 with 180 grain ultrashocks that didnt move a little after the shot.

If you shoot at a tin can the bullet can knock down the can. A large animal such as a person or deer will not be knocked down by a bullet, unless it is the size of a cannonball. The movement of the deer after being shot is due to nerves and muscle reaction, not the kinetic energy or momentum of the bullet.