This thread makes me want to buy a 1911.
Thank you for your "helpful" opinions.
Again, maybe a bit more clearly...
This thread makes me want to buy a 1911.
Browning's model didn't have an external safety...that is fact.
I don't buy the argument that the 1911 was not designed to be carried cocked and locked solely because nobody can find a quote that says 'Designed to be carried cocked and locked'.
If you do, people who own a Glock will have strong opinions on how you should carry it
I own 2 Glocks, and carry a Glock 19. So don't worry, I'll be constantly arguing with myself how I should carry it
Any recommendations which 1911 I should look into?
I agree with what you have stated, but many of those military manuals indicate to carry in condition 3. Where is the documentation from any 1911 manufacturer that specifies it's intended method of carry?
For a bit of reference..I found a Basic Field Manual from 1940. Here is what it states...
"In campaign, when early use of the pistol is not foreseen, it should be carried with a fully loaded magazine in the socket, chamber empty, hammer down. When early use of the pistol is probable, It should be carried loaded and locked in the holster or hand. In campaign, extra magazines should be carried fully loaded."
How is that any kind of fact to indicate it was designed to be carried in condition 1?
Browning's model didn't have an external safety...that is fact.
Those of you who have ascertained with your vast experience that using a thumb safety on a 1911-style pistol is somehow inherently slower than (insert alternative) should probably send a letter to the people below. They need to know how much slower they are because of that pesky thumb safety they disengage every time they draw their gun:
Rob Leatham
Todd Jarrett
JJ Racaza
KC Eusebio
Travis Tomasie
Max Michel
etc etc etc
If they only knew how they were handicapped by that incredibly slow thumb safety, they might not be able to win as many big matches where speed is at a premium.
Neither are proof of the design, only directed by the military to be carried that way.But, Brownings model that did not include the safety was dismissed as not meeting the requirements. Wasn't the 1903 in 380? Would that infer that he really intended the 1911 to be in 380, but the pesky requiments foiled him there too? The military deemed the safety-less Browning design to unusable. In post #129, you include a quote that states that the proper method of carry is cocked and locked when action is imminent, but then highlight the sentence that says to carry unloaded when not near the enemy as proof that the 1911 was designed to be carried that way.
The standard carry of a military issued 1911 is condition 3. Condition 1 is to only be carried when action is imminent.I don't buy the argument that the 1911 was not designed to be carried cocked and locked solely because nobody can find a quote that says 'Designed to be carried cocked and locked'. Lack of evidence supporting condition 1 is not evidence in and of itself. If the military manual quoted says to carry in condition 1, then is that not evidence that the same military that required a design artifact that can only be used in condition 1, then recommends it as the proper use of the weapon, did not, in fact, require the design to support condition 1?
Incorrect....so when you brought up carrying unsafed that would be the same as carrying without a safety...
Correct.I dont own a handgun with an on/off safety. So my input would be completely worthless and irrelevant.
Incorrect.
Correct.
Young gentlemen, let me be totally clear here. Your opinion is sincerely much appreciated. Really.
Even the parts where you guys think you can tell me what to do.
However, when you choose to quote me in your post, you should expect to be held accountable and on point with your words.
I will rephrase the original question I asked:
There are posts in this thread suggesting that it is good practice and safe to carry a handgun with the external safety switch turned to the off position. Is this sound advice? Can this be substantiated by someone other than those who carry guns without external safeties?
Isn't that a bit skewed being that they use the RazorCat versus a standard 1911? I am truly wondering not trolling.
Only two that I listed use guns built by Johnnie Lim and only one (JJ) uses the model you mentioned.
I don't do "trolling." I was trying illustrate the absurdity of the claim that using the thumb safety on a 1911-style pistol results in some noticeable delay. Virtually all of the top USPSA and IPSC shooters in the world use some variant of the 1911 with a completely functional thumb safety because it is the most efficient tool for shooting with the best possible combination of accuracy and speed. Such delays only happen if the user doesn't know how to draw and present the weapon in any number "correct" ways.
Furthermore, even if they did all use a "RazorCat," it still has a thumb safety that functions exactly the same way as any government issue 1911 or 1911A1. The "pedal" may be bigger, but you still have to push it downward to make the bang switch work later.
Furthermore, some may not realize that one's thinb should be pressing downward on the thumb safety all the time the thumb safety is "off" for a variety of reason, which includes while you're actually shooting.
ya that i s what i said 1911 is a good design. i ment thumb saftey not grip saftey you can see if the thumb satey is on.This one doesn't make a whole lot of sense because technically all you can see is the button or the grip, you can't actually see it disconnecting or engaging. Anything mechanical can and will fail, less amount of moving parts means less that can break. That is why the 1911 is such a popular style that many have based their designs after. IMO fewest amount of parts that gets the job done is the best design.