external safety hatred syndrome

[dom1104]

This thread is spiraling out of control.

I love it.

Its so subjective, its wonderful

In my case, as a 1911 carrier, the manual safety makes a lot of sense.

1. The shooting sports I participate in, are dominated by 1911s. So all that trigger time, translates into my carry gun. I dont believe in "Compete with a 1911, carry a P3AT".

2. I carry AIWB style, so the gun is pointed at my junk and major arteries when I reholster, it sure is nice to click that safety on before I jam the gun into my pants. So I do not shoot my weiner off. Let me repeat, this is important to me.

If I carried a Glock or M&P, I probably wouldnt AIWB carry, which would limit my deep concealment options considerably. Again, the risk of shooting my weiner off and dieing quickly, is greater than the mugging, rape, murder what have you that the gun is being carried for.

People who are "Gun People" tend to underestimate how completly dangerous firearms are. People who are SOs or range officers tend to have a better understanding, of just how much of an idiot people can be waving deadly weapons around like it "aint no thing".

Your firearm is probably the most dangerous item in your possesion, it would be wise, wether it be a Glock or a 1911, to be very selective in your mode of carry, and routine handling of the weapon.

I honestly dont care, if it takes .1 second longer to flick a safety off, we all know that when you shoot someone, they dont vaporize, and the fight is still on for many dozens of seconds.

If .1 seconds is the difference between your shot and his shot, I got news for you, you are BOTH getting shot.

If you think its a "quick draw" situation, where the first person to get a hit knocks the other one back and the game is over....

Too many video games.

 

[Garb]

1) External "Safety(s)" -- BY THEIR NAME -- encourage less-than-100% vigilance in everyday pistol safety. ("What's to worry?!? It's on *safe*!! {BANG.}) It's a GUN, and it could wound YOU in the same way that knife over there {points} would, if you were stupid enough to pick it up and toss it repeatedly into the air. DON'T DO IT.

I disagree. Only a moron would act like that with ANY gun, regardless of whether it has an external safety or not. I am just as careful with my 1911 as I would be with a glock or a revolver.

 

[Garb]

This thread is spiraling out of control.

I love it.

Its so subjective, its wonderful

I know, it's like ATF Consumer vs. the world.

 

[Indy_Guy_77]

For those of you that think the 1911 was "designed to be carried cocked & locked"... History Fail.


-J-

 

[dom1104]

For those of you that think the 1911 was "designed to be carried cocked & locked"... History Fail.


-J-

Agreed.

Frankly I couldnt care less how something was "designed' I just care about what works for me.

All this JMB worship gets a little insane anyway.... who cares, judge a product on the products merit.

 

[Indy_Guy_77]

Agreed.

Frankly I couldnt care less how something was "designed' I just care about what works for me.

All this JMB worship gets a little insane anyway.... who cares, judge a product on the products merit.

Yep.

 

[kingnereli]

1) External "Safety(s)" -- BY THEIR NAME -- encourage less-than-100% vigilance in everyday pistol safety. ("What's to worry?!? It's on *safe*!! {BANG.}) It's a GUN, and it could wound YOU in the same way that knife over there {points} would, if you were stupid enough to pick it up and toss it repeatedly into the air. DON'T DO IT.

That's the most baseless bit of hooey I've seen spouted on the internet in quite some time. Proper gun handling is not the result of the absence of a firearm's safety feature. Idiots will handle firearms in a certain way and responsible gun owners will handle them in quite another way. Otherwise responsible people do not suddenly treat loaded firearms as play things because there is safety present as you believe. To the contrary, the choice to carry(and use) a safety equipped firearm shows a greater understanding that circumstances, the actions of others and even our own actions are unpredictable resulting in variables that are best handled with layers of safety. How someone could arrive at the conclusion you have is beyond me. My best guess is by projection.

2) External Safeties on long guns are quite different.
a) I don't stuff long guns ("safed" or not) INTO MY PANTS.
b) Long guns may be waved all over UNPROTECTED from trigger perturbations -- we're just hoping not too much falls into the barrel, let alone gets near the trigger.

Safeties on long guns are very much the same issue and represent a huge logical inconsistency with those who argue that a safety on a pistol is a hindrance. Very rarely will see one of them carry over the same arguments to long guns. That they are a slow, unnecessary extra step before you are ready to fire that could get you killed. In your case, you said that manual safeties "by their name" lead to reckless handling. You must logically apply that to long gun safeties or your inconsistency discredits you.

Your point here is that we don't carry holsters for long guns. That's true. Yet, a pistol in a holster is a situation where the safety is the least necessary. There is sufficient reason to keep a holstered gun safetied but it's when the gun is out in human hands that the safety is most important. Out of the holster where the trigger is exposed where any number things could happen. Where jacket pull ties can snag triggers when holstering. Where that same tree branch can grab a pistol trigger that can grab a rifle trigger. Where humans can display their profound ability to become absent minded at the worst possible time.

c) The presentation of long guns in a defensive situation occures without the surprise of close-quarter conflict like that seen with handguns; even long guns brought to bear in a hunting or target application have specific ritual involved with travel, positioning, and fire-ready preparations.

Ah, so the man that kicks in my door to rob my house gives me fair warning because my home defense weapon is a long gun? All gun fights are ambushes. Gone are the days when armies would stand in long lines and politely exchange volleys 'till someone's lines broke. Whether it is warfare or personal defense there is an attacker and a defender. The defender, which will almost universally be the roll of the civilian gun owner, will not be given fair warning and had better learn to recognize and respond quickly no matter what weapon they have at their disposal. You find that training in safety manipulation an acceptable part of the skill set with a long gun but not a handgun. Why? It is because you are not willing to be logically consistent.

3) Analogies have been made about driving a car with no brakes, flying a jet with no window, -- but a safety on a handgun is like none of these, for these *mostly* work, and their failure or disengagement is obvious. A handgun safety, AT THE TIME OF MOST IMPORTANT USE, is not so visible (whether the user is an ignorant child, or an adrenalin-rushed adult). Only the end result in the case of an unintended discharge, will be obvious. Ewww.

The analogy I am fond of is that of not wearing a seatbelt because there is an air bag present and you are a generally safe driver anyway. It's foolish. It displays an assumption that you can control all the variables and that reasonable safety precautions are unwarranted. Handgun safeties are neither complicated nor prone to failure. Everyone will acknowledge that any mechanical device can fail but are you aware of any safety design so unreliable that it is sure to cause problems for the user? If you are please enlighten us. Safeties shove a chunk of metal in the path of a moving part. For the 1911 up is safe and down in fire. My blender is more complicated than that.

FWIW, If I *had* a 1911-patterned weapon, I would definitely carry cocked/locked, and train to pop off that thumb safety-- and were children around, I would (and have) removed my barrel round (from my GLOCKs and Kel-Tecs), but as I carry different weapons in different carry modes in different situaltions, and don't wish to have to chant my current configuration to myself to keep things automatic as I walk down the street, I'll keep things simple (GLOCK and/or Kel-Tec) and *always* know, unless my pinkie is in the breach, that my gun will go BANG if I pull the trigger. Much more than that is too much burden, and will get *somebody* shot.

You distrust your ability to manipulate a safety when needed. This isn't rare. It is a training issue and in no way negates the value of having the safety present.

To the best of my knowledge, those that participated used their own 1911s.

What you need to understand about this experiment is that using a safety without a net increase in draw time is achievable. Those people you witnessed are simply not there yet. It's not an issue with the safety. It's a training/practice issue. The amount of data points you would have to have to claim that it is universally true that using a safety increases draw time is staggering. Not to mention that a fraction of a second longer draw time is quite worth the benefits of having the safety active.

How is a fact that John M. Browning did not design the 1911 to be carried in condition 1 "my opinion"?
People continually post that misinformed notion as fact, yet there is nothing to back it up. If you think that is my opinion, then PLEASE PROVE ME WRONG!

*snip

It is odd that you won't accept military manuals as evidence. It's correct that Browning's original design did not include a thumb safety and was, therefore, not designed to be carried cocked and locked. The thumb safety was a military requirement so that the guns could be carried cocked and locked. The inclusion of the safety indicated it was to be used. Look at it this way. If you find a 1911 without a thumb safety present it is as Browning designed it, to be carried condition 0. If you find a 1911 with a thumb safety it is as the military originally intended and should be carried condition 1. Notwithstanding the historical aspect, as I mentioned before, the hammer is quite precariously suspended over the firing pin.

 

[OD*]

The M1911 was designed for the Military (not the civilian market), to be carried hammer down on and empty chamber, as they still call for today.

 

[ATF Consumer]

It is odd that you won't accept military manuals as evidence. It's correct that Browning's original design did not include a thumb safety and was, therefore, not designed to be carried cocked and locked. The thumb safety was a military requirement so that the guns could be carried cocked and locked. The inclusion of the safety indicated it was to be used. Look at it this way. If you find a 1911 without a thumb safety present it is as Browning designed it, to be carried condition 0. If you find a 1911 with a thumb safety it is as the military originally intended and should be carried condition 1. Notwithstanding the historical aspect, as I mentioned before, the hammer is quite precariously suspended over the firing pin.

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?

 

[ATF Consumer]

The M1911 was designed for the Military (not the civilian market), to be carried hammer down on and empty chamber, as they still call for today.

BINGO!
I think the military understood the number of soldiers handing the 1911 and pushed for the maximum amount of safety while still allowing reasonable reaction time if needed.

Ultimately, safety comes down to the handler.

Again...carry as you like...I just wanted to clear the air on what is fact about the 1911 and what has been spewed all over the net, that is not fact at all.

 

[iChokePeople]

Edit: leaving this poor horse to die in peace.

 

[OD*]

BINGO!

Originally, for the Military, but "When early use of the pistol is probable, It should be carried loaded and locked in the holster or hand." If we didn't think the need of a weapon was possible, we wouldn't carry concealed. Today, cocked and locked in the best compromise between safety and speed, I know of no one, civilian nor professional that carries Condition Zero, nor teaches such.

 

[JetGirl]

Why is the intent of the design so important to prove or disprove anyway?
I don't get it...

 

[OD*]

...One of those weird things I like about people is that we're creative and invent stuff and sometimes even improve on the original design of something....

Exactly.

 

[bobzilla]

BINGO!

Again...carry as you like...I just wanted to clear the air on what is fact about the 1911 and what has been spewed all over the net, that is not fact at all.

This is hilarious... if not hypocritical. Fact? When have you spouted anything that could possible be construed as fact in this thread? You've given opinions that you spout off as facts. But no real facts. High Horses should only be ridden when one is no a hypocrite.

 

[OD*]

Why is the intent of the design so important to prove or disprove anyway?
I don't get it...

It isn't, but so many claim that JMB DESIGNED the M1911 to be carried "cocked & locked", it is simply a matter of incorrect deduction on their part, the actual history of the pistol can be found quite easily.

 

[ATF Consumer]

Why is the intent of the design so important to prove or disprove anyway?
I don't get it...

Just clearing the air on what is fact and what is not...

Should we allow history books that our children are taught in school spew misinformation about our founders?
Any time something is not accurate, it should be corrected...that is all I am trying to do, yet I can't believe all of the resistance that has been shown on here...why are so many pushing non facts?

 

[JetGirl]

so many claim

Mkay...
I guess I'm just in the "Meh, so what" crowd.
Just sounds like something to get panties twisted about because otherwise...boredom ensues.

 

[OD*]

Mkay...
I guess I'm just in the "Meh, so what" crowd.
Just sounds like something to get panties twisted about because otherwise...boredom ensues.

No twisted panties here, just a history buff that appreciates correct information, not everyone does nor cares, which is fine too.

 

[ATF Consumer]

This is hilarious... if not hypocritical. Fact? When have you spouted anything that could possible be construed as fact in this thread? You've given opinions that you spout off as facts. But no real facts. High Horses should only be ridden when one is no a hypocrite.

The only thing that is my opinion is that with proper safety awareness, condition 0 is no less safe than condition 1.

Here is a fact...many on here fail to accept the facts.