Is this what you call condition zero?

[Pilgrim]

I had my 1911sc in my Tucker holster, sitting on the chair next to my sofa. I picked it up and butterfingered the whole thing 2 feet to the carpet, with a thud.

I picked it up and stuck it in my pants. Tonight, I took the holster out of my pants and noticed that the thumb safety was off. I carried it all day that way. I wasn't even concerned as that's what grip safeties are for...and you still have to pull the trigger to make it go bang. Even if you drop it, the 1/2 cock position takes over.

Condition 0 means cocked and not locked, I think. Well, this wasn't locked with the thumb safety but still had the grip safety to keep it safe.

On a 1911, if this is condition 0, then it's sort of a misnomer as there is still at least one safety in effect. Seems like having the thumb safety isn't even necessary...it still is as safe as a Glock....maybe more.

Everyday that goes by, I like the 1911 design more.

 

[SKS Ray]

I can say I've sat at the range with both of the Glocks I've owned and fiddled with the trigger, even going so far as to bump it pretty hard while still maintaining a firm grip to keep it tight and down range and never have had an AD. I have though heard about stories of people having one in the chamber, dropping it, and having a round fire. Either way I still don't keep one in the chamber and always practice quick draw/chambering/firing drills when I shoot it. I even go so far as to practice diferent body positions be it restrained or free handed just to get a method of draw and fire down. I started with Snap Caps at home.

 

[Bugs100]

Well if condition one is cocked and locked, carrying it cocked and unlocked would have to be condition 0..

I got my first 1911 40 years ago and have never had a AD. I've had a lot of guns and have always liked the 1911 best.

 

[Chris]

Browning's original design did not have the Thumb Safety. Browning believed that the grip safety alone was all that was needed. The Army disagreed and the thumb safety was added.

So, you just carry as the great John Moses Browning originally envisioned.

Nothign wrong with that in my book. (^_^)

 

[depicts]

Chris, not to dispute you, but I believe the Army were the ones that wanted the grip safety for their horse soldiers for the 1911. Browning added it at their request. Like his famous P35, or Hi-Power, Browning did incorporate a thumb safety as part of the initial design. Browning didn't think a grip safety was needed.

 

[Chris]

Visit the Browning Museum in Ogden, Utah and go look at the 1910 version they have on display. (This is a different piece than the Browning 1910 made by FN) Grip safety is there, but no thumb safety, and no cut out in the slide where one would be.

The .45 ACP cartridge was originally developed in 1905 and the pistol for it was modified over and over. The Grip safety to meet the requirements of "safe in the holster and live in the hand" was added in 1908. The calvary request added the thumb safety in 1910 mainly as a means to keep the gun in battery when jammed into a holster.

So, while the M1911 ALWAYS had both safeties, in development, the grip came first and the thumb came later.

 

[KMaurer]

I carried my old Commander for about 20 years that way without the slightest problem. If JMB never felt the need for the manual safety, who am I to argue?

Ken

 

[M1911]

A holstered gun is a safe gun.

 

[Cross-X]

So, Chris, I guess you won't mind if I make a practice at the next IDPA match of holstering my 1911 with the slide safety off, right?

 

[Chris]

Go right ahead my friend. Who am I to say otherwise?

Of course, the SO of the stage should nail you with a procedural as regardless of the historical precident, the rules clearly state that Single Action pistols must start with the safety engaged.

Hmm, actually, I don't see anything in the rules that explicitly requires the safety, just a statement that the pistol must be started in the proper rediness for its design. It does state that double action must start hammer down, but for the life of me I can't find anything that explicitly states that you must use the thumb safety. So, I would defer to the manufacturer's instruction manual. If you can show the SO that the safe operation of the gun as defined in the manual makes no mention or explicitly says that the thumb safety is optional, I'd give it to you. (^_^)

 

[Rob Boudrie]

So, I would defer to the manufacturer's instruction manual. If you can show the SO that the safe operation of the gun as defined in the manual makes no mention or explicitly says that the thumb safety is optional, I'd give it to you. (^_^)

If matches are to consider only those actions permitted to be those allowed in the instruction manual, you will have to prohibit users of Glocks (as well as many other brands) for using reloaded ammunition as this is specifically prohibited by the factory.

There is merit to the "Safety on" argument for a single action (all incidents I am familiar with in which someone shot themselves in the leg due to improper holstering would not have occurred if the safety were first engaged), however, it sets an difficult precedent for any shooting sport to adopt the position "If not allowed in the manual, you can't do it."

 

[depicts]

Chris, I should know better than to try and debate you, but I want to show you some comments I found on line quickly after reading your post.

What is clear to me is that there was development on an automatic pistol before 1900. More work went into a 1907 model and then a 1910.

Howerver, The following posts I gathered can support my position that the grip safety was an add on at the request of the Cavalry.

I will agree though, I did find MANY conflicting reports on this while I was looking, and didn't find what I call the "Coup de gras" for my arguement.

I'll be looking though, and try to come up with the name of the General Ordinance Officer (not Thompson) who made the final request for the grip safety for mounted troopers.

Until then, keep that maniacal grin on your face, and I'll be back soon when I have more facts

Bill

From a few 1911 websites

http://www.sightm1911.com/
During the trials, several alterations were made to the original design such as a single swinging link, an improved manual safety, and the inclusion of a grip safety and a slide stop. The other significant change was to the grips, which were angled more acutely and lengthened slightly.


http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-45075.html
Jim Keenan
04-18-1999, 01:15 PM
The original Colt 1905 never had a grip safety, but those made for Government trials in 1907 did, for the reason I mentioned in another thread, to make sure shooter's hand was out of the way of the slide.

The 1909 trial model had a grip safety, but originally had no thumb safety. A crude thumb safety was added, then in the 1910 model both safeties became like those of the pistol finally adopted in 1911.

The thumb safety on the M1911/A1, when on safe, will not only block the sear, but will prevent the hammer from falling if the sear or hammer notches were to fail completely.

Jim

[This message has been edited by Jim Keenan (edited April 18, 1999).]

http://www.stiguns.com/USPress/Gun&Ammo/Model1911VIP/Model1911VIP.html
While Mr. Browning did not want a grip safety on his .45 pistol, I can see why the military insisted on `it.

 

[TY43215]

So, Chris, I guess you won't mind if I make a practice at the next IDPA match of holstering my 1911 with the slide safety off, right?

S 9. All CoF will be started with the pistol holstered and safe, hands clear of equipment as directed by the SO unless other positions for the pistol are stipulated (table top, drawer, pack, purse, or in the firing hand).

C 15. Pistols must start from the mechanical condition of readiness appropriate to their design and be loaded to division capacity (See Appendix One – Equipment, Firearms for division capacity explanation). High capacity magazines must be loaded to full division capacity of the division the contestant is shooting in.

It may be OK with Chris, but not me. It would be a FTDR for 2 reasons: Unsafe gun handling and/or unsportsmanlike conduct (trying to gain an advantage) The unsafe part is "How do you or I know your grip safety works?"

The advantage is No thumb safety on cuts a little bit of time.

But what do I know. I shoot revolver

 

[Chris]

First, I agree 100% that I would want the thumb safety on. And I already stated that I'd call a procedural on it.

BUT. In the interest of playing the 'prove its required' game as a thought exercise....

I don't see any place that so requires it in the rules. The closest is the "mechanical condition of readiness appropriate to their design" which frankly says to me you have to look at the manufacturer's recommendation. Surely the manufacturer will tell you how to set up your pistol appropiately for its design.

OK, you say a 1911 pattern pistol should be holstered in Condition One. That is your definition of "mechanical condition of readiness appropriate to their design". But by what authority do you make that claim? Jeff Cooper sure says so, but I don't see any design patents in his name.

I'm not trying to be difficult here. I'm just trying to figure out exactly where you look to define the 'design'. You and I both know what we think, but is that 'authority'?

It's kind of like asking someone to define what 'Quality' is. We all know what it is, but it's hard to set a definitive rule.

Rob, reloads would not apply as that has nothing to do with the "condition of readiness" of the pistol.

 

[Cross-X]

It may be OK with Chris, but not me. It would be a FTDR for 2 reasons: Unsafe gun handling and/or unsportsmanlike conduct (trying to gain an advantage) The unsafe part is "How do you or I know your grip safety works?"

The advantage is No thumb safety on cuts a little bit of time.

But what do I know. I shoot revolver

Chris, RGS, I think it's time to tell you that I was just pulling your legs. I would never actually advocate permitting IDPA competitors to hoster a 1911 with the thumb safety disengaged.

I just figured it was time to stir the pot. (grin)

 

[TY43215]

I'm not trying to be difficult here. I'm just trying to figure out exactly where you look to define the 'design'. You and I both know what we think, but is that 'authority'?

First, I know this was suggested in jest. Others read here and I would not want a problem on the line because they read a flip statement on a forum.

Second, because of the way the IDPA rules are written, I do not have to show where my reasoning was obtained. It allows total discretion to me as the SO. Past experience and sound reasoning gives me my interpretation along with over 30 years in various shooting sports.

In short, the rules in IDPA are poorly written but possibly with the intention of making people think on their own.

Regards,

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Rob, reloads would not apply as that has nothing to do with the "condition of readiness" of the pistol.

Would you allow a shooter using a Colt Python to start a stage with 6 rounds in the gun? The manual for that gun states that the chamber under the hammer should be left empty, even though the modern hammer block in that design renders such advise obsolete.

 

[Chris]

Would you allow a shooter using a Colt Python to start a stage with 6 rounds in the gun? The manual for that gun states that the chamber under the hammer should be left empty, even though the modern hammer block in that design renders such advise obsolete.

Learn something new every day on this board.

Of course I would allow a load of 6. But what 'I' would do wasn't the point of the exersise. The point was to follow the rules to the letter. And in that case, you could argue that it's a 5-shot revolver if the manufacturer says to keep the chamber empty.

My whole point here is that the rules are not all that clear in this matter. For example, if you took the 1911 and looked to find the "mechanical condition of readiness appropriate to their design", one tactic you could take was to go back to the first user of the pistol and see what they said. If you did that, you would find the US Army manual clearly states that the gun should be kept without a round in the chamber and hammer down.

The term "mechanical condition of readiness appropriate to their design" assumes a lot of inherant knowledge on the part of the reader. Knowledge that isn't readily available in some well documented place.

Not saying that it's good or bad, just saying that it's open for interpretation.

First, I know this was suggested in jest. Others read here and I would not want a problem on the line because they read a flip statement on a forum.

I agree, my original answer was probaby a little too subtle for some.

Kids, please do not try anythign you see here at home. We are what you call 'experts'. (Expert what is of course up for debate)