If someone hit the resting hammer on a 1911 and caused a discharge, it was a series 70. The series 80 weapons have a firing pin block that only allows the gun to fire if the trigger is pressed.
Truly impressed Someone managed to make the gun significantly more dangerous for the person holding it and significantly less dangerous for the person being shot at!
...... why the hell would anyone think thats a remotely good idea to carry like that, like what kind of backwards convoluted thought process led to that being seen as a good idea by a sapient human being
I think he just never knew the striker wasn't cocked and never bothered to test it. Maybe all the other firearms he ever had cocked on opening just a little bit and didn't really understand the differences, just assumed they all worked the same.
The reason for thinking it was safe goes back to external hammer fired guns like a shotgun. If the hammer is down, it is considered safe by some. It of course much safer when barrels opened and gun empty. For that particular browning used in the demonstration, the minimum sear engagement would make me carry it with chamber empty.
So... the logic it seems he was trying to accomplish was essentially 'hammer down' with the striker fired gun, becaused for some reason, cocked guns irrationally scare people, apparently even when you cant see its cocked. But, but, he also wanted the +1 capacity. But,but,but, even though he seemed to understand enough of how the mechanism worked to figure how to essentially 'decock' it on loaded chamber, he didnt seem to understand that it wasnt a double action gun? Or that to fire a round he would have to rack out the round in the chamber? Was he so obsessed with rendering the gun 'safe to carry' that he didnt realize he had created a fundamentally contradictory setup? That every action he took counteracted every apparent goal?
and dont forget get james bond , the 1910 is the first pistol you see him use on screen in dr no as the props department could not get a suppressor for a walther , love the content always interesting showing all the things we wish we could still have in the uk
The other problem with Glock pattern firearms is people being in shooting situations and afterwards when trying to holster the pistol, still being affected by everything that happens to you in that kind of life or death situation, don't notice something gets inside the trigger housing and depresses the finger dingus and the trigger with the pistol loaded and then they Glock themselves.
I don't understand your point: how is it "The other problem with Glock pattern firearms" specifically and not a problem with other types of handguns? How would it be less of a problem "being in shooting situations and afterwards when trying to holster the pistol" if the pistol was, say, a Beretta 92FS or a SIG P226?
@@niznikb The Glock has no manual safety. The 92FS and 1911 pattern guns do. I worked a contract security job. I trained to carry with the hammer de-cocked and on safe with a round in the chamber. I trained to release the safety on drawing with trigger finger out side the guard, reverse that putting the pistol back in the holster. Glock style pistols unless they have a pin in the base plate that starts to protrude as the firing pin is being cocked AND you train every single time to holster with your thumb over that pin in case what I wrote about happens you have no way to notice that or prevent that. My point was that in the aftermath of a shooting situation, and the physiological affects of that situation, you are going to be acting on automatic and how you trained. If your Glock was pulled from concealment from under clothes, after you pull those clothes up they are going to fall back. And if they fall over the holster mouth and you don't see that because in practice when you are not under stress you held them up to holster, if a piece of fabric or anything gets under that trigger guard it can pull that trigger and finger dingus. Glock your self.
@niznikb with a 92 or a 226 the force required and the distance the trigger has to move (assuming decocked as it should be) is far greater than with a Glock or similar.
It was M1900. It was in 1904. You can see the date on the memorial plate at the location: hs.mediadelivery.fi/img/978/5266902d12624cf385339c07eba49153.jpg
British nomenclature is different. On a single action pistol like a 1911 I learned it as not a rebounding striker, but as being a firing pin. It works by inertia since in the hammer down down position it does not extend forward sufficiently to make contact with the primer. In the hammer down position, most blows to the hammer will not cause the firing pin to move forward. But dropping is one the muzzle could cause a discharged in the original configuration. Some 1911s have a trigger activated firing pin block. In the half (quarter) cock position it is possible if the pistol is dropped on the hammer for it fire. A military spec gun with 8 lb often plus trigger and full strength firing pin springs are less likely go off from being dropped in my opinion.
Walther CCP you can load a round in a magazine, but not cock the striker assembly if you don't pull it all the way back. So even a new gun has this safety flaw.
My Father-in-Law was a South Australian Cop; carried one of these in a holster that press-studded into an oversized pocket in his uniform trousers. They were used by the S.A. Police until the 1970s, when they were replaced with the S&W .357 revolver.
Do I get this right that for the sake of one extra round he was carrying an inoperable pistol unless he racked the slide but ... not all the way ... just enought to engage the striker 😮 I wonder if that person ever successfully used this process while under stess.
I carry my FN 1910 only in condition 3: chamber unloaded and magazine loaded . The contact area of the striker/firing pin and the sear is minuscule, a blow in the rear of the gun will likely fire a chambered round. Better safe then sorry!
The reason the Makarov is so thoroughly designed to be safe is because it's predecessor the Tokarov T-33 had no safety at all. It is reputed that as many Soviet officers shot themselves with it as shot anyone else. Even the Soviet Union took notice of statistics like that.
So this "clever" guy made his pistol unsafe for him, for the primary reason a pistol would be carried: Expecting it t go "BANG" if in a self defence situation, mostly because of a "dead trigger" his attackers would remain unperforated and unstopped.
Converting British to American...what Bloke is calling the 'striker' is known as the 'firing pin' in the Colonies. We use striker to refer to the bit that hits the firing pin proper to fire the gun, in lieu of a hammer. Hence, 'striker fired' vs 'hammer fired' guns.
Cheers Mr B! Question though -- I've always wondered if those "firing pin acts as ejector" pistols could set off an unfired round if it was manually ejected with enough force? Would it even dimple the primer?
I was shown a way to carry a Glock with a loaded chamber and and the striker/trigger not set (trigger back)... Just disassemble it, take the barrel out and put a live round in the chamber, then assemble it, being careful to pull the slide back just far enough to snap together but not cock the trigger forward. Stupidity always find a way...
Ive actually drop tested a mak several times to TRY to set a primer off. I was unsuccessful, and it might be because the firing pin mass is light and the primers in the ammo were wolf. But i get bigger primer dents when charging some of my rifles than I got from dropping my mak multiple times from multiple heights
My father had a lovely 1910 and I used it for many years....Very simple, very well made. I don't see what the gentleman was trying to achieve with that bizarre arrangement.
It´s bigget brother, the 1910/22 were in widespread use by Belgian gendarmerie and police until the mid eighties, in .32 ACP. Still plenty surplus to be found for around 150€
it's fine, you can't pull it back hard enough to set it off. The ejection port is a bit tiny though so it's not always reliable... Remove the mag and pull back the slide, they sometimes fall down the mag well IIRC, but it's been a while since I did that.
I've always been told the FN 1910 (and many of its era) are inherently unsafe since the firing pin is also the ejector. If you have to unload the gun for any reason without shooting it you are taking a risk.I guess you could argue there is an unsafe way to CARRY it but next to what I've said who cares at this point? You're going to be unloading it far more than you'll ever shoot it (as least I am).
With that grip safety, I see no extra danger in cocked-n-locked, "Condition One" carry...if you want more "safety", Condition two, full mag and empty chamber is all there is, that makes any sense. As you say, there's always that SPECIAL idiot, who tries to game it right into a non-working piece of kit.... we're the 1910's ever built in .380 ACP, or were they all .32s? Thanks for your work, Mike!
