Do you carry your 1911 in "condition 0?"

[WalkingWolf]

Old thread, but still an interesting topic. Condition 1 on a 1911, always. That's how it was designed.

I am fine with condition one, BUT it was not designed to be carried in condition one. In fact the models that were submitted before the 1911 did not even have a thumb safety. The thumb safety was a hurdle that Colt had to add to get acceptance from the US Calvary.

 

[Keylock]

My Detonics doesn't have a grip safety. They were designed to be carried Condition 2 which is how I carry it.

 

[WalkingWolf]

My Detonics doesn't have a grip safety. They were designed to be carried Condition 2 which is how I carry it.

I have carried condition 2 for over 35 years, 1911's, S&W M-39 and M-59, Star Pistols, Sterlings, and a PA-63. All modes are safe to carry as long as done properly and never have a brain fart. Some modes are less forgiving of brain farts, and I don't know anybody who has never had a brain fart. It just depends on if their fart injures or kills someone. If the world was perfect we would not need seat belts or car insurance.

 

[Citizen]

I am fine with condition one, BUT it was not designed to be carried in condition one. In fact the models that were submitted before the 1911 did not even have a thumb safety. The thumb safety was a hurdle that Colt had to add to get acceptance from the US Calvary.

Something changed along the way. Check out items "i" and "l" from the Army manual on 1911A1's: http://www.thegunzone.com/fm23-35_safety.html

 

[dashowdy]

Something changed along the way. Check out items "i" and "l" from the Army manual on 1911A1's: http://www.thegunzone.com/fm23-35_safety.html

That is interesting, I guess if you were relying on it at that moment or as your main weapon then carry it cocked and locked, if you have a battle rifle carry it condition 3. I am fairly new to them still and find them just as safe as my glocks or m&p when carried cocked and locked. Whatever way anyone decides to carry it whether condition 1 to 3,practice, practice, practice, and practice some more. Going from the polymer wonders to the 1911 has been easier for me since I have a nice high hand hold my thumb always rides on top of the safety while shooting, if I put it underneath it starts to want to push up on the safety and slide stop so condition one was like coming home in my case. That may be different for other shooters based on there experience and level of comfort.

Also I would guess factoring in the kind of warfare involved at the time, hand to hand trench combat, that these rules were written with this in mind. I wonder how the marines and special forces carry theres now?

 

[KYGlockster]

1FASTC4 wrote:
No flame intended. IMO condition 2 is the worst way to carry a 1911! If safety is off and you grasp the grip safety, internal wear could allow the hammer to touch the pin. Likely replacing the internals with quality parts would have solved the problem.

Glad you maintained good muzzle discipline.

Yata hey

That's right! The 1911 was designed my Mr. Browning to be carried "cocked and locked." Not utilizing the safeties the way they were designed to be utilized could cause problems, and the grip and thumb safety are useless on a gun that is not cocked, as is the half-cock notch.

If I carry a 1911 it is carried condition 1, with a round in the chamber, hammer cocked, and all safeties engaged.

 

[WalkingWolf]

That's right! The 1911 was designed my Mr. Browning to be carried "cocked and locked." Not utilizing the safeties the way they were designed to be utilized could cause problems, and the grip and thumb safety are useless on a gun that is not cocked, as is the half-cock notch.

If I carry a 1911 it is carried condition 1, with a round in the chamber, hammer cocked, and all safeties engaged.

I love it when people rewrite history, like saying the 1910 Colt never existed. As far as cocked and locked Colt made a 1903 model that was hammerless and WAS designed to be carried cocked and locked. Now why in the helll did Colt put a hammer on the 1910 without a thumb safety. It would have been so simple to make the 1911 hammerless using the 1903 as a stepping stone. Why didn't the army ask for a hammerless battle pistol?

 

[MackTheKnife]

Condition 1 as compared to glocks

My two cents: I carry my Kimbers Condition 1. Honestly, I never thought about "Condition 0". As for some previous comments about Glocks/1911 Condition 0 being about the same, that is not an accurate analogy. Glocks are striker-fired and the striker is only partially tensioned. Pulling the trigger completes the tensioning allowing the gun to be fired. A 1911, fully cocked in either Condition 0 or 1, the firing pin is fully tensioned.
As for having an ND carrying in Condition 0, I honestly can't see how this condition is more prone to an ND than Condition 1. If your finger stays off of the trigger until your sights are on the threat, it shouldn't be an issue.

 

[MAC702]

On my Kimber ultra with a extended beavertail grip safety and a bobbed hammer it extremely difficult to draw the hammer back. So this is another reason to carry in condition 1.

And are you doing so with your strong hand's thumb or your support hand's thumb? The latter is usually easier and faster, but, well, requires a support hand, something you always use when you can, but should never rely on.

It's quite unusual for your first post to resurrect a two-year old controversy, but welcome to the forum!

 

[MAC702]

My Detonics doesn't have a grip safety. They were designed to be carried Condition 2 which is how I carry it.

Which Detonics? Their most famous firearms have grip safeties and use the 1911 manual-of-arms.

The MTX model does not have a grip safety, but is not "designed to be carried Condition 2." It has the normal frame-mounted thumb safety. Do you have anything from the manufacturer to support your claim?

Even the defunct Mk VI has a frame-mounted thumb safety.

Why would a modern gun that is "designed to be carried Condition 2" not have a decocker? No manufacturer that would expect to survive a lawsuit would claim this.

 

[MAC702]

For the OP (if still alive):

Unlike Condition Two, which adds time, especially if one-handed, Condition One adds ZERO time to draw, present, and fire. Thumbing off the safety should be done during the rotation of the draw. The pistol is ready to fire the moment it is pointed downrange, even before extension and sight alignment. Why would you not use it?

Honestly, a modern 1911, in a proper holster, is probably quite safe without using the thumb safety. But there's just no need not to use it.

 

[WalkingWolf]

In all due respect, and fairness we know for a fact that brain farts happen and highly trained individuals have them and have accidents. NOW if everybody is brain fart free, and perfect to perfection, I can buy the statement. If that was true you would not only be safe in condition one, but also cocked without a safety, you would never need car insurance, because you would never get into a car accident that was your fault. How many think that carrying a colt SA revolver cocked is safe?

Every ND that I have heard of ultimately boiled down to a finger on the trigger, but getting those involved to admit to that is next to impossible. But there are certain things in life that are safer conditions. Like doing jumping jacks in your home, or doing them standing on the ledge of a skyscraper. My son is a lineman, who has had friends die on the job, most of the time caused by brain farts. Climbing power poles and handling high voltage wires are just dangerous. There are more safer lines of work, but that is what he chose. What has that got to do with carrying cocked and locked? IMO you're are more susceptible to a brain fart resulting in injury in that mode, but it is your chose, just as others have the choice to carry in any frigging condition they want.

Further it is my opinion that if you prefer cocked and locked you should not have to explain it, or defend it, or any such nonsense. If you are confident than do what you do, but please stop trying to infer that other methods by other people do not fit into the church of 1911. Oh lord that you might step out of step with the other members of the congregation and be ridiculed.

 

[WalkingWolf]

For the OP (if still alive):

Unlike Condition Two, which adds time, especially if one-handed, Condition One adds ZERO time to draw, present, and fire. Thumbing off the safety should be done during the rotation of the draw. The pistol is ready to fire the moment it is pointed downrange, even before extension and sight alignment. Why would you not use it?

Honestly, a modern 1911, in a proper holster, is probably quite safe without using the thumb safety. But there's just no need not to use it.

I can draw and fire a SA colt in less than a half a second, that includes cocking the hammer. Is that too slow for self defense? I carry my 1911 in the same fashion, would that be too slow for a 1911 for self defense? Are you that quick with the safety? If you are is it because you are taking the safety off before or as it is leaving the holster?

I have carried and drawn and fired from both conditions, I find no difference in speed in each instance. Both are conscious steps that need to be made at ONLY the appropriate time.

 

[MAC702]

I can draw and fire a SA colt in less than a half a second, that includes cocking the hammer. Is that too slow for self defense? I carry my 1911 in the same fashion, would that be too slow for a 1911 for self defense? Are you that quick with the safety? If you are is it because you are taking the safety off before or as it is leaving the holster?

I have carried and drawn and fired from both conditions, I find no difference in speed in each instance. Both are conscious steps that need to be made at ONLY the appropriate time.

I did not address an actual time. "Too slow" is also a relative term and therefore irrelevant to this discussion.

I also already clearly stated when I took off the safety.

If you wish to add a step in your draw, and you train for the added dexterity needed to do it, you are not the target audience for the modern technique. Carry on.

 

[WalkingWolf]

I did not address an actual time. "Too slow" is also a relative term and therefore irrelevant to this discussion.

I also already clearly stated when I took off the safety.

If you wish to add a step in your draw, and you train for the added dexterity needed to do it, you are not the target audience for the modern technique. Carry on.

Actually I can do whatever I feel like, and not give a damn about the "target" audience. I don't know what the hang up with so many of being anointed by the 1911 church. What modern technique? Are you joking?

 

[MAC702]

Actually I can do whatever I feel like, and not give a damn about the "target" audience. I don't know what the hang up with so many of being anointed by the 1911 church. What modern technique? Are you joking?

Then why are you arguing in a thread where the OP was asking for our opinions? He and new guys like him would be the target audience.

I am qualified to give my opinion. You are apparently qualified not to need it. But one would think you could offer your opinion without belittling others' theirs.

I should have put "modern technique" in quotes. It is the accepted term used by those who teach this method for this fighting pistol. And it does not discriminate against other techniques.

Interestingly, you choose to argue how I presented my information, instead of debating the dexterity needed for your method of carry.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Then why are you arguing in a thread where the OP was asking for our opinions? He and new guys like him would be the target audience.

I am qualified to give my opinion. You are apparently qualified not to need it. But one would think you could offer your opinion without belittling others' theirs.

I should have put "modern technique" in quotes. It is the accepted term used by those who teach this method for this fighting pistol. And it does not discriminate against other techniques.

Interestingly, you choose to argue how I presented my information, instead of debating the dexterity needed for your method of carry.

I am not arguing, I just don't understand why people feel the need to defend their method of carry, and those same people put down others for their mode of carry. The question of the OP was condition 0, not condition 2 BTW. Give a rational opinion and then leave it at that IMO. I never feel the need to justify or argue how I carry, because frankly it is none of anybody's business. It is my responsibility, my choice, and if the the God's of the church of 1911 don't like it they can "bugger off".

But to be clear the 1911 was not designed to be carried cocked and locked, if it was it would not have an exposed hammer like the 1903 officers model. This is really the only thing I try to correct, because it is blatantly false, and the claimers know it is false. I believe it is wrong to give advice using false narratives. If cocked and locked is God's gift to 1911's then let the other person decide on all the real evidence. All three modes of carry are SAFE, unless four conditions are met, 1 round in chamber, 2 hammer cocked, 3 safety off, 4 trigger pulled.

You can pull the trigger all day on an empty 1911 and it is not going to fire, same for a loaded gun with the hammer down. Only one method allows the gun to fire if the safety is off out of negligence. I personally carry SA revolvers most of the time, I feel completely safe in the mode with the hammer down on either a empty chamber, or the FP nestled between case heads. But from what has been said by the 1911 cult that would be unsafe, I should walk around with the hammer cocked over a loaded chamber? Granted I don't have a manual safety, but the guy from that video did, before shooting himself in the leg carrying "how a 1911 was designed".

I have done both on the line at the LE range. Cocked from a holstered gun after drawing and on target, and then re-holstering cocked and locked and continuing from that condition. Their is no noticeable difference because the shot should not be taken until consciously ready. IMO fast draw should not be done from a gun loaded with life taking ammo. Fast draw SA revolver competition is done with wax bullets only, if Tex had been using a airsoft for his drills he would not have shot himself. But it would not have looked as kewl on camera.

Again there is nothing unsafe by the three methods of carry as long as done properly.

 

[MAC702]

I am not arguing, I just don't understand why people feel the need to defend their method of carry, and those same people put down others for their mode of carry....

Please show me where so I may make the appropriate apologies and corrections.

 

[MAC702]

...But to be clear the 1911 was not designed to be carried cocked and locked, if it was it would not have an exposed hammer like the 1903 officers model. This is really the only thing I try to correct, because it is blatantly false, and the claimers know it is false. I believe it is wrong to give advice using false narratives...

You continually address this to me. Why? I've not argued (that I can remember) otherwise.

Now, I have argued that its original design (relying heavily on Army administration and policies) has little to do with the "modern technique" that many of us teach. But that is not what you are addressing here.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Please show me where so I may make the appropriate apologies and corrections.

I did not accuse you, but you do make claims like "too slow" which you can have no idea how one method may be speedier for another person. If you are talking about yourself you really do not need any explanation of speed, it is your decision and none of my business, or anyone else. As for the "designed for cocked and locked" that jewel belongs to another member, and was the only reason I stepped into this age old useless discussion. As to the OP he was asking about carrying with a round in the tube and the safety off, it might be faster but is it worth the risk, only he can make that choice. And if he screws up, not one of us is going to pay his bills, well at least I will not.