TexasCHLforum.com

My Hi-Power does not leave Condition 1 except for the brief moments when cycling shots

nice Hi-Power - is it the newer FM model? The slide isn't tapered at the front & I think only
FM does that.

ghostrider wrote:

My Hi-Power does not leave Condition 1 except for the brief moments when cycling shots

nice Hi-Power - is it the newer FM model? The slide isn't tapered at the front & I think only
FM does that.

Thanks! Yes, it is an FM, but it is the FM-90, which is the MkII design. The current production is the MkIII design, the FM-95. FM got rid of the beveled slide when they moved to the MkII, and all of their Hi-Powers from then forward have an unbeveled slide. I believe mine was a early to mid-90s production. I bought it NIB last year. I actually prefer this one to the newer FM Hi-Powers, mainly for the grips that come with it. They are similar to a Pachmayr wraparound grip, and fit my had very well. I may change out the safety lever with one of the newer extended ones sometime in the future, but it's not a priority right now.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

The 1911 has a thumb safety. As designed, the thumb safety can be applied only if the hammer is cocked.

Draw your own conclusions.

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.

And yet he designed it with a thunb safety...

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.

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 arent going to change any minds as this mindset is decades old. I think both 1 and 2 have their place and for me everyday ccw is Con 2 and with practice is every bit as fast as 1. Con 3 is truly unsafe in a defensive situation and I was shown that a while back and quit carrying that way. Condition 1 may come to ready a literal split second faster but in reality is inconsequential to me. Browning isnt here to ask and while Cooper was well deserving of his reputation he cant speak for everyone and was not right all the time.

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!

In case I haven't made it clear previously, I'm a firm believer in condition 1.

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

If that is correct, then the slide safety would be the only thing preventing a discharge in his initial design.

That doesn't answer what his intentions would have been but it does remove an important safeguard.

Secondly, and I have no military experience to base this on, hasn't condition 3 always been the designated method of carry for the military?

Was this because the military didn't have enough faith in its recruits or was it deemed fast enough in combat?

Secondly, and I have no military experience to base this on, hasn't condition 3 always been the designated method of carry for the military?

Was this because the military didn't have enough faith in its recruits or was it deemed fast enough in combat?

I believe that's correct. And I think that's the reason the Browning hipower contains that
magazine-disconnect mechanism, erroneously referred to as a safety :-)