TexasCHLforum.com

LarryH wrote:

G.C.Montgomery wrote:Oh, and the Blackhawk revolver is not a modern design. The Blackhawk is not and has never been marketed to law enforcement, military or the public as a modern personal defense sidearm. Single-action revolvers like the Blackhawk are primarily marketed to collectors/enthusiasts, grown men who still like to play “Cowboys and Indians,�

So that's what I am! I never knew! Well, guess I'll own up to "enthusiast", though.

A double-action revolver is on my wishlist, though. Saw a LNIB Security-Six (in stainless) at the Pasadena Gun Show yesterday. Unfortunately, I'd just written a check to replenish our supply of 9mm and .45, so didn't have enough in that account to cover it. Told the dealer that, if he still had it when my income tax refund arrived, I wanted it.

Hey man, I call it as I see it. There's nothing wrong with SAS/Cowboy Action in my book. If you like it, I love it. But I'm not making up a name for myself, like Quickdraw McGraw, and dressing up in the latest, 1880's fashions to go shoot. I don't do "tacticool Gucci" when I go to an IDPA or USPSA match either. Any match I can shoot in jeans/shorts and a t-shirt is too much of a hassle for me. I make an exception for 3-gun because I've only got so much room on my belt for guns and magazines.

KD5NRH, TXI’s statement, “There is no need to cock a modern double action revolver,� is correct within the context of this discussion. You are correct in that should an operator choose to use such a revolver in single-action mode, then one would have to cock the hammer. If for no reasons other than product liability and knowing that some owners would make that choice, manufactures had to provide an information resource for “safe� de-cocking.

Now from the perspective of a defensive shooter, soldier or police officer, taking the time to cock the hammer is time you don’t have. As TXI pointed out in an earlier post, TXDPS and others stopped allowing/teaching people to cock modern DA revolvers in training and during qualification because it established a dangerous and time consuming habit that was getting officers killed on a street. Many departments went so far as to pay a premium for double-action only revolvers. The fact that S&W. Colt, Taurus and others still tout the single-action triggers on their modern DA revolvers is irrelevant within the context of TXI’s statement and the discussion of modern revolvers for defensive shooting.

Oh, and the Blackhawk revolver is not a modern design. The Blackhawk is not and has never been marketed to law enforcement, military or the public as a modern personal defense sidearm. Single-action revolvers like the Blackhawk are primarily marketed to collectors/enthusiasts, grown men who still like to play “Cowboys and Indians,� as well as hunters who believe the single-action frame is inherently stronger than that found in a double-action revolver for use with larger cartridges such as 454Casull.

rm9792 wrote:…I will concede that no instructor on the planet advises Con2 because they all teach as they have been taught and adhere to the established doctrine, same with LEO and other professionals. Even if one did think it was better he would never teach it as he would open himself up the ridicule and bashing I have. Generations have not tested Con2 IMO because they have all been taught 1 is the best and no one has told me why up to this point. I have only heard because Cooper says so and no statistical data to back up Con 2 being unsafe.

I thought I was done but this is yet another point that I can’t let go unanswered. As an instructor, I personally to take exception to the statement above because it's wrong and it’s the second time I am forced to question whether you are the one speaking from conjecture rather than experience. I'm sure there are other instructors who are just as insulted but aren't going to dignify it with a response.

Cooper’s “Modern Method� defies your statement that all instructors adhere to established doctrine. Cooper’s concepts and methods contradicted all established civilian, military and police doctrine back in the 1960’s. Cooper was dismissed as a maverick by many “authorities� of the day, including many NRA instructors. Times have changed and now Cooper’s methods are considered established doctrine in many circles. Still the evolution continues as the generation of instructors that succeeded Cooper either added material of their own to Cooper’s concepts or even abandoned some of Cooper’s methods all together.

Clint Smith and the United States Marine Corps added the color Black to Cooper’s Colors to indicate a mind actively engaged in combat where Cooper stopped at Red believing the extra step was unnecessary. Brian Hoffner added yet another color, Blue, to indicate a reassessment or “downloading� phase in which one is still highly alert after engaging the first threat but scanning for more. On the other hand, John Farnam, also a Cooper student, generally does not teach Cooper’s Colors. He may refer to them from time to time but the color codes are not discussed in lectures unless students bring them up. There are also the programs of Gabe Suarez, Paul Howe and Larry Vickers...All considered bleeding edge. These are just a few examples of instructors who don’t just teach what they’ve been taught but push the envelope and continually update their programs with new techniques and concepts.

The point lurking here is unless you have attended classes with these people, you can’t offer an evaluation of their programs. And yet you made the statement above. The only way you could actually make that statement as a fact rather than conjecture is if you’ve attended classes in these programs over the years. I have attended said classes and spend a good bit of time teaching them. I reject your assessment as false. So my question is, have you actually tried attending a class with these or any other instructors lately or is your statement just conjecture and emotion?

This is my last post on the Condition 2 subject within this thread. WildBill, I don’t think you are picking on me and I understand your desire for specific references. I’ve tried but failed to find such references on the Errornet since I saw your post. I also saw seeker_two’s post that Browning designed his pistols to be carried in Condition 2 but, I can’t find references to verify that either. I’m not going to spend the weekend looking for Browning’s opinion because it’s not necessarily relevant.

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. He made his living as an engineer. On the other hand, we have nearly 100 years of practical experience from several generations of soldiers, police officers and gunmen who have carried the 1911 since its introduction. Theory is fine but personally, I’m more interested in the opinions and experiences of the guys who actually use the equipment in an environment beyond that of a square range.

I want to throw out some thoughts on the terminology for a second. IIRC, the Condition 1/2/3 terminology was an invention of Jeff Cooper and it applied primarily to the 1911. As such, the terms don’t relate well to revolvers or auto-loading pistols based on other operating systems such as Beretta’s 92/96 series, the Glock or Sig pistols. When I started shooting stuff other than the 1911, I came to the opinion that Cooper’s terminology was flawed, non-descriptive and confusing. When I started training with John Farnam and Brian Hoffner, I found they shared that opinion and they and other instructors actually use far more descriptive terms (engagement, carry, transport and storage modes). Still, in mixed company, when discussing the 1911, I continue to use the old terminology because most folks are familiar with it. Anyway, back to this Condition 2 business.

Proof of concept comes from attempting to apply said concept in the real world under a variety of conditions. RM9792 said of Condition 2, “If it is slower it is by milliseconds…� That says to me he has never actually tested the concept to prove it one way or the other. Even if he has tested it this method, I have little use for a system in which safety hinges on the availability of two hands. There is a good chance that you might not have two hands available to you before, during or after a defensive shooting. Further, we always say the key to any system is proper training…Fine. Now, please show me one instructor who actually recommends and uses Condition 2. And if you’ve got one, please invite him to the next CHL Forum Day.

As I mentioned earlier, I’ve trained with John Farnam and Brian Hoffner among others. While I have a bunch of pieces of paper on my wall from a bunch of schools that say I’m an firearms instructor, I continue to see myself as a student. So, I’ve also attended courses with a dozen other instructors during the last ten years. While we continue the debate on this board, I find it interesting that not one instructor I’ve met has recommended Condition 2 carry. Nearly all recommend and use Condition 1. The lone exception that comes to mind is an Israeli program that recommended Condition 3. That program has its roots in the earliest days of the Israeli Defense Force when the sidearms they had simply weren’t safe to carry in any other condition. I’ve watched more recent Israeli diplomatic protection personnel in training and it appears even they have abandoned this approach.

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. Some day we may find specific references to John Browning’s intention confirming one opinion or another. In the meantime, we live in the real world. The fact is, you’ll find far more folks with verifiable real world experience and credentials recommending Condition 1 than any other condition with respect to the 1911. With all due respect to John Browning, I’m remain much more interested in what today’s gunmen have learned as a result of practical experience during the past 100 years rather than Browning's theories. YMMV

O6nop wrote:Personally, I don't see how you can cock the hammer on a 1911 with one hand, the beavertail gets in the way. I may be uncoordinated but I did try it with an unloaded gun. The angle also makes it difficult to do that. Being an uncoordinated movement, it's possible to accidentally put your finger on the trigger while pulling the hammer back thereby causing a discharge. The presence of the beavertail, to me, makes this action difficult and I would never reccommend it.

The other issue, dropping the hammer on a live round is a bad habit in my mind, but that's just me.

While all true 1911s have a grip-safety, not all have one of the "Beavertail" type found on many, if not most, modern 1911s. The shorter spurs found original format 1911 grip-safeties might allow some folks to use their thumb to cock the hammer. Regardless, I never recommend using a thumb to cock the hammer on a 1911.

txinvestigator wrote:

txbroker wrote:I was confused by an earlier statement about knockdown power and handguns? can someone elaborate?

Handguns don't have "knockdown power". Heck, most rifles don't either. However, I think most people are referring to the general power of the round when they use the term. Some people DO believe that a person will be knocked down by the impact of the bullet, and we try to kill these and other hollywood myths.

Yeah, what he said

txbroker wrote:First post, surpised I didnt find this forum sooner.

Lots of great info but couldnt find what I was looking for so,

I have a Colt Defender in .45, was wondering how those who have this firearm carry? This is a SAO firearm so you either carry it hot or not. You eiter have one in the chamber with the hammer back and safety on or a dead stick until you cycle the chamber.

I love the size and knock down power of this firearm and also have a .40 Baby Eaglr I carry. the Defender is a lot smaller and easier to conceal.

Any information is appreciated.

Paul

Welcome to the forum, Paul. As you mentioned the Colt Defender and all true 1911s are designed to be carried cocked-n-locked. Carrying the 1911 in any other condition is slow and/or dangerous. I learned this fact the hard way a long time ago. You'll find tons of info on this forum regarding carry options and you'll also find a number of 1911 shooters around here of varying skill levels. Comments:

1) The 1911 is a great platform but nothing is perfect.
2) Knockdown power is pretty much non-existent in any pistol caliber, the sooner you get over that fact the better.
3) Know your gun and learn to maintain it...Maintenance, more accurately a lack there of, kills.
4) If you are going to carry this gun, don't try to cut corners by using cheap carry rigs, cheap ammo and cheap magazines. (It's like running cheap gas, cheap oil and cheap tires on a Ferrari.)

rm9792 wrote:Most will disagree but I carry my 1911's hot with hammer down. I have practiced and shot IDPA condition one and hammer down and found no difference either way in speed. With a spur hammer you have plenty of surface area to thumb back on the draw (finger off trigger till ready). I have large hands so my fingers get a good grip on the pistol so my thumb is free to pull the hammer as i am clearing the holster. Just another idea for you.

As anyone who has seen my hands can confirm, I too have large hands. I've also shot in more than a few IDPA and USPSA matches. Early in my shooting career, I had my first negligent discharge while trying to run a 1911 in condition 2. So let me go on record saying I fall into that group of folks who will disagree with the above statement. As others pointed out, one has to ask how you "safely" lower the hammer on a live round.