I was thinking about DAO pistols and how they have no hammer spur to grab and cock, for obvious reasons, it's simply serves no purpose since the gun cannot be cocked in that manor anyway.
Then I started thinking about the 1911. It's either "cocked and locked" or hammer down on an empty chamber. I see no reason to ever lower the hammer by hand nor do I see a need to manually cock it.
So why does the 1911 still have a hammer spur? Does it need the weight of the metal for inertia? It seems it's only purpose is cosmetic.
It's there so that if need be, the hammer can be lowered or cocked with the thumb.
The hammer spur has been around since 1911 (94 years) without causing any problems. You can remove it of course, but I suspect if you use the pistol very much you'll come to regreat it. If you want a pistol without a hammer spur buy a model that comes that way.
No no... I don't want to cut it off. I was just pondering and wondering if it was mechanically necessary. I think it would look silly without the hammer spur, like shaving a sheep dog.
I have seen and handled bullseye target pistols where the owner and/or his pistolsmith(?) cut off the hammer spur to increase lock time by lowering the hammer's weight. If this made any difference in the lock time it wasn't noticed on the targets, and range officers generally took a dim view of the practice. If the mainspring wasn't lightened I'm sure the pistol would, and did in fact, go bang!
From a safety standpoint, the "spurless" hammer worked because in this particular environment the slides had to be kept locked back, and the magazines out, until a command "to load" was given. At the end of a string of fire the slide had to be locked open again, and the magazine removed. To this degree it worked. Under any other circumstances I wouldn't want to get near to anyone carrying or using a spurless single-action pistol.
Old Fuff wrote: "Under any other circumstances I wouldn't want to get near to anyone carrying or using a spurless single-action pistol."
I am not sure why, Old Fuff, other than maybe it shows the gun has had work done on it and might not be safe in some other way. If one carried a 1911 type with the hammer down on a live round, the hammer spur would be needed. But that, as we know, is not a great way to carry the gun (although I have done so). (The issue of a lighter hammer and less momentum, with possible misfires, is a question of reliability, not safety.)
However, as you might recall, I have mentioned high speed photos showing the slide kicking the hammer back out of contact until the hammer spur hits the grip safety. I wonder how far back the hammer would go if it had no spur to stop it.
The Old Fuff would get a bit uneasy if someone with a de-spured Government Model forgot and tried to lower the hammer on a loaded chamber -either by intent, or having forgotten that the chamber was loaded. If they wanted to lower the hammer on a loaded chamber they'd have to clear the pistol first, which they might or might not remember to do...
I didn't fire any of the "bobbed" target pistols that I examined, but none of their owners complained about any problems, including being bitten. I don't plan to find out...
The spur has a purpose, just like everything else on the gun. That it will fire and function without one doesn't alter that.
Momentum for reliable ignition... especially if the firing pin tunnel is less than sparkling clean.
Inertia for providing resistance to the slide's initial movement. This tends to delay barrel unlock timing just a little, giving the chamber pressure a nanosecond longer to fall before unlocking begins... which is a good thing. Every little bit helps.
No. The hammer doesn't cock smoothly. It slams back and bounces off the grip safety, as Keenan described. Look under the slide to see the area that it hits when it rebounds.
It provides a means of lowering and thumb-cocking the hammer. I know that lowering the hammer on a hot chamber is ill-advised. It's an inherently dangerous move on an inherently dangerous piece of machinery... but there are circumstances that it's a useful option, and it can be done safely, regardless of what the naysayers scream. I carry in Condition One 99% of the time. Once in a while, circumstances dictate that I carry in Condition Two. Removing the spur negates that option and does away with a function of the gun. The spur is functional and is checkered/serrated for a reason.
The hammer doesn't do the "biting"... at least not an an A1. The old 1911s that had the long spur and short safety tang were truly brutal for most people, as were the early Commanders. That's been corrected. The grip safety tang itself is the culprit... and more pronounced with a high grip.
Removing the hammer spur won't change that one lick.
I agree with Tuna it's the grip safety tang that's the culprit on any but the original nineteen-one-one. But I call it hammer bite because it sounds more manly.
For me it was the end of the hammer that bit me. On my Systema it was very sharp and just the end hit the web of my hand. I removed about 1/16" from the end and that took off the sharp edge and it no longer bites me.
OBTW the spur also helps with recocking while dryfiring...
One use for the 1911 hammer spur is to recock the gun with the "off" hand for a second try at an unusually hard or thick primer. In that case, it would be better to rack the slide and try the next round. The hammer spur on the 1911 is of limited use. Do not lower the hammer to half cock on a loaded chamber: safety up is the only safe mode with a 1911 with a loaded chamber. The spur does allow you to lower the hammer on an empty chamber without stressing the firing pin.
IMO the hammer spur is purely vestigial. The only use I can see is for dryfiring. I personally never touch it.
Agree with most of what Carl says...but lowering the hammer on a hot chamber and carrying hammer down does have its limited niche.
My son's 1911-clone Para-Ordnance has a half cock stop that stops the hammer if it slips, but it is not a full notch: pulling the trigger will drop the hammer from half cock: not a half cock safety.
My C96 Broomhandle Mauser is worse: there is no half cock, so if the hammer drops it hits the firing pin even if the trigger is untouched. It too has only two safe modes: hammer down on empty chamber or loaded chamber, hammer cocked, safety on.
While cocked & locked carry has become "the" way to go, John Browning didn't see it that way - at least on his larger pistols (.38 and above) pointed toward the military market. His first .38 pistols didn't have safety locks (manual safeties). Neither did any of his .45 prototypes and Colt's .45 commercial model 1905. In fact he didn't add a manual safety to a .45 prototype until November, 1910, and that was because of insistence by the Army. A slightly modified pistol was adopted as the model 1911 on March 29, 1911 - only 5 months later.
It wasn't that Browning didn't know about manual safeties. His first commercial semi-automatic pistol, the FN model 1900 had one, as did all subsequent FN/Browning pistols made before the First World War. In this country manual safeties are found on Colt's Pocket (.32 & .380) and Vest Pocket (.25) models as well as the pre-Woodsman and Woodsman (.22LR).
In fact it should be noted that with the exception of the model 1911, FN/P-35 Hi Power and perhaps the VIZ-35, all of Browning's pistols with exposed hammers didn't have manual safeties, where all that had enclosed hammers or striker/firing pins did. The above mentioned FN pistols were finalized after Browning's death.
So it's obvious that JMB considered safety locks on exposed hammer pistols to be superfluous and unnecessary. Times have changed of course, but the history is interesting. So is the fact that between 1900 and 1910 (The last Browning/Colt design other then the pre-Woodsman) nothing happened to change the inventor's mind. You can be sure that if lowering-the-hammer accidents had been common - or at least publicized - it wouldn't have taken Colt long to have made some changes. As it was, they didn’t drop the last of the old 1903 period .38 pistols until 1929 when the Super 38 was introduced.
Obviously JMB meant hammer guns to be carried at half cock, and considered that enough of a safety. Only the hammerless (or concealed hammer) designs had manual safeties. This is true not only of handguns, but of all Browning shotguns and rifles as well. You are right that the M1911 safeties, both the grip safety and the manual safety, were put on at the insistence of the Army (along with many other features often attributed to Browning's "genius").
BTW, Old Fuff, the Polish Radom does not have any manual safety other than the half cock; what looks like a safety is merely a slide lock for dismounting.
As for the hammer spur, I am not advocating its removal, and it can be useful, but given the way the gun is used today, it is not essential for safe carry. (Again, the added mass for reliability is another issue.)
If you pick up or someone hands you a 1911, you would remove the magazine then rack the slide to see if it's empty and put on the slide lock. When you release the slide, how would you lower the hammer if it didn't have a spur? I'm not always comfortable with "dry-firing" to lower the hammer if the pistol is not mine or I'm in a room with others present.
I've given up on trying to out-think John M. Browning.
I was aware that the VIZ-35 had a decocker, rather then a true manual safety. That why I said:
In fact it should be noted that with the exception of the model 1911, FN/P-35 Hi Power and perhaps the VIZ-35, all of Browning's pistols with exposed hammers didn't have manual safeties.
Simply because I didn't want to go off on a tangent. In any case the hammer decocker wasn't a Browning design.
Since his early exposed-hammer handguns had inertia-type firing pins I believe that Browning intended that the pistol be carried with an empty chamber, but loaded magazine - or with the hammer fully down and the chamber loaded.
Quote:
For me it was the end of the hammer that bit me. On my Systema it was very
sharp and just the end hit the web of my hand. I removed about 1/16" from the
end and that took off the sharp edge and it no longer bites me.
That's why I replaced the original with a later Colt version.
Though I NEVER lower the hammer on a live round, I ALWAYS drop the hammer (carefully) on an empty chamber when I clear it before going to bed. If it's needed in the night, rack the slide and she's ready to go.
Could be, Old Fuff. Hard to tell what JMB really had in mind all those years ago. I doubt he was very safety conscious, though, or maybe he just figured that anyone who didn't know how to handle a gun was just a darned fool. I never thought much of the early designs where the key ("slide lock") could be left out and the slide would come back in the shooter's face. That was one of the things the Army boards didn't like and their disapproval led ultimately to the single link design.
BTW, on the Radom, I was not talking about the decocker on the slide, but about the dismount lever, which is on the frame in the same place as the 1911 safety and looks exactly like it. But it serves no safety function and is used only to lock the slide in the takedown position.
I agree...
On the VIS-35 what looks like a safety lock is indeed the takedown latch. The decocker is mounted on the slide, and interesting enough it preceeded the Walther P-38 by three years.
But in both cases, JMB had nothing to do with the design. By that time he was long gone.
I also agree with you about the crosskey in the early .38 automatics. I have one, but I won't shoot it for the reason you indicated. However Colt made these from 1900 to 1929, and if there were serious problems I would have expected them to have introduced a .38 caliber version of the 1911 long before they did in 1929.
The correct(?) way to carry one of the .38 automatics was mentioned in the instruction label that was pasted inside of the box lid. I'll see if I can find one.
Hello. The spur hammer does bite me and has on each and every 1911 I've fired having one and the standard GI grip safety. As has been mentioned, the edges of the safety can contribute to the problem to be sure. I've rounded mine off and mostly eliminated the problem. It was completely eliminated when the spur hammer was very slightly bobbed and reshaped, but very little was actually removed.
I don't think I'd care for a 1911 not having at least some hammer spur.
You may have noticed that F.N. did much the same on the P-35 Hi-Power, which in theory if not practice had a worse bite then the 1911's...
Something that probably should be mentioned is that, until fairly recently, the practice of carrying in Condition One full-time was almost unheard of.
Most people who carried the big Colt either carried hammer down on an empty chamber or hammer down on a hot chamber. Some who didn't understand the potential for problems even carried half-cocked on a hot chamber. I've carried all ways except on half-cock.
Lowering the hammer on a loaded chamber is risky... but to flatly state that it can't be done safely is absurd. It can be done. All one needs to do is stay focused on the task at hand, give it his undivided attention and maintain control of the hammer. Practice the drill... unloaded... and don't get in a hurry. Do it in such a place and in such a way as to keep the bullet from zinging off to parts unknown should the gun fire. A two-foot thick stack of dry newspaper makes for an effective bullet trap if you can't go out in the back yard. A 55-gallon drum half-filled with dry sand is perfect, if a basement or garage is part of your floorplan.
The bottom line is that no loaded gun can be completely safe. The relative safety lies with us. We are either competent or we aren't.
Quote:
On my Systema it was very sharp
Same here, and same solution. I just cut off some of the hammer, filed it so it looked ok, hit it with some cold blue. Big improvement.
Either the Argentines didn't shoot the Sistemas, or they wore gloves. This fix is not rocket surgery.
I have a brand new milspec, and I intend to make two and only two changes to it.
I mean it. Really. Only two, I swear.
Unless something breaks...
I'm going to put a beavertail and a flat mainspring housing on it.
Last time, I replaced the ignition, to get a hammer that would work with the beavertail.
This time, I'm just going to bob the hammer down far enough to clear the beavertail.
After reading this, I think I'll leave enough for function, (the commander hammers have enough "spur" for function, so it should be possible) but bobbing the spur is a LOT simpler than a new ignition system.
Not to mention cheaper.
Especially once you count all those hammers and sear...
Yes, you are leaning. Take a look at the hammer used in a Detonics.
http://www.detonicsusa.com/combatmaster.html
Don't forget that the 1911 and designed by JMB had a nice wide checkered spur which works extremely well for thumb cocking and decocking.
Which is why every 1911 pattern pistol I have owned in the past 25 years has had one. Including the Officers ACP.
If properly practiced Condition Two carry is just as safe and dang near as fast as Condition One carry.
And before y'all start flaming me please notice I used the phrase "properly practiced".
Tell us, Old Fuff, did they teach carrying unloaded before WW I?
I seem to remember reading somewhere that JMB originally designed a .45 for the army which was single action and striker-fired, like the 1903 and 1908 pocket hammerless guns. But that design didn't even get past the planning stage because Uncle Sam insisted on an external hammer, so that dud rounds could be hit again.
Whether this is true, I don't know.
All of the Colt/Browning Military designs in both .38ACP and .45 ACP featured an external hammer.
Photos of all of the Colt/Browning military designs have been posted in this thread. (post #87)
The US Government initally tested/considered other designs that did not feature an external hammer. It was during those tests that they decided an external hammer was preferrable.
The Colt/Browning designs had always had external hammers, even before the Government specified an external hammer.