Firing pin block question

First topic message reminder :

This is a question that has been bothering me for some time. Believe me, I share the frustration that a lot of shooters have with Colts FPB. When you pull the trigger back you are also moving the block out of the way. This adds to the frustration of getting a consistent feel/pull. But the Kimber is a totally different animal. The FPB is moved out of the way when you squeeze the grip safety. This happens once for each string and I can't tell/feel any difference. I am not a gunsmith. I just shoot the things (well, I play with triggers) but if there is something I am missing here please point me in the right direction. I like the Kimber and think they make a nice shooting pistol. I never said "great shooting" that would be something that takes a BE smith to make happen.

Len

The purpose of the "lock" device is to increase safety.

This is not the subject in which to play silly word games.

The last thing we need is a loaded gun dropped on its muzzle, or on the hammer, discharging and causing injury at any range, not to mention an Approved or Registered match. There may be weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth if it's a Series 70 or earlier gun, but the flak and fallout if it's a Series 80 or other later "more modern, safer design" with the FP block REMOVED will be severe.

Massad Ayoob warned of the dangers of de-activating any safety device in the SD arena. AFAIC, it applies equally to range queen guns, for reasons associated with the extreme and often unfair scrutiny that follows mere accidents.

As far as the ILS goes, I'm just telling you what the NRA said and that included an email to their main referee for Perry.

Here is the text from the email (I was specifically asking about ILS mainspring housing and LCI's)... I'm trying not to go to far from the original post.. He does mention Series 70 and 80 at the end of the email. 



Doug,

Good to speak with you as well.  Below is the reply from my Chief Referee at Perry.  As you can see, just because some may be doing the things you mention, does not mean it is legal.

Refer him to rule 3.1.B-3. Last line is "All safety features must operate properly"

Both the items he mentions would currently be considered safety features.

It is likely that many shooters have disabled safety features either through intentional action or inadvertently by changes made to their pistols. It is also likely some of these shooters compete at Perry.

The truth is. That if something gets through or is not caught by a referee or match official or is used by many other shooters, does not mean that it is legal, it means that it has not yet been found.

If the changes were to be made, it may not be found out. However if it is found it would result in disqualification. In the event of winning a match or setting a National Record, both would be forfeited. There would be no argument that since others do it, it is acceptable. 

Pending future changes in definition by the Pistol committee, the current rules require all safeties as incorporated by a manufacturers must function. This applies even if one manufactures includes a LCI and others do not. Same as the Colt 45 series 80 having a firing pin block, but not the series 70. 

 
I know it’s not what you wanted to hear, but it’s the way it is for now.  As I suggested when we spoke on the phone, send in a written request to pistol@nrahq.org to have your concerns brought before the pistol committee at the next meeting this October. 

I have a few thoughts on this subject. Feel free to disagree. I feel that the ILS is a safety device in the same manner that the padlock and metal frame that came with my Mark III is a safety device. It is there to stop the accidental discharge of the firearm from/by individuals that have no business handling the firearm. You would not be expected to leave the padlock and metal frame attached to the pistol when the pistol is being used in a match. It is a lock and can be removed by the individual that is authorized to use the firearm. That's my .02.

Len

To Grumpy Old Man's point, bringing a firearm to the firing line that isn't safe--don't do it.

Isn't their something about Series 80 hammers?  Do they lack a half-cock notch?

Rob Kovach wrote:To Grumpy Old Man's point, bringing a firearm to the firing line that isn't safe--don't do it.

Isn't their something about Series 80 hammers?  Do they lack a half-cock notch?

It wasn't a Series 80 related issue. For a while, Springfield Armory was building 1911s with non-captive half-cock notches; if the hammer fell to half-cock, you could continue pulling the trigger and the hammer would then drop to the full down position. Since these half-cock notches were cut so that the hammer was in a lower position at half-cock, there would not be enough inertia to fire a live round in this situation. This caused a stir at Camp Perry, and the referees were provided a plastic gauge to check the hammer to firing pin stop distance. After a while, Springfield Armory abandoned this cost cutting measure and went back to the standard captive half-cock notch.

Walt

I agree the ILS is a lock, and should not be considered a safety device. But, until such time as the powers that deem otherwise, we have to live within their rules.

I don't believe the email from NRA is talking about the ILS lock.

Earlier in the email string I specifically asked about the ILS lock on a Springfield Range Officer.  In his response he says "Both the items he mentions would currently be considered safety features.".  This was in reference to the ILS lock and a loaded chamber indicator.

Doug

Rob Kovach wrote:To Grumpy Old Man's point, bringing a firearm to the firing line that isn't safe--don't do it.

Isn't their something about Series 80 hammers?  Do they lack a half-cock notch?

It came from a bag of parts, so I'm not sure of its date of manufacture, but yes, the only Series 80 hammer I've dealt with had a half-cock "shelf", resulting in a lower hammer position as noted above for some older Springfield (commercial) pistols.

Being rather old-school and unfamiliar with THAT little item of Colt genius, I considered it evidence of damage or tinkering by the previous owner, and promptly Dremeled a notch into that shelf. Having done some black powder shooting and BPCR as well with period pieces, something that acts like a half-cock but still lets the trigger get pulled to drop the hammer just made me NERVOUS!

Will have to go look. That hammer might not even still be in the gun. Might have replaced it because the primary sear notch was too boogered to really get a proper pull. It was like 6 lbs when I got it. The owner of the bag of parts was a "combat" shooter. Those are all the clues I'm gonna give.

IF I were in the market for a new 1911, I'd get a Kimber or something else with the grip safety unlocked firing pin block.

I also have a very low opinion of internal locks. Did not notice when the FP block discussion drifted from that to the ILS.  Yeah, I see the point on them being a security device more than a safety device. ALL of my earlier comments were intended for firing pin blocks. Not sure I would ever buy a firearm with an Infernal Lockup S*** device. But I would buy a vintage 1911 with sufficient "neato" factor without a FP block as perhaps the only exception to my preference for FP blocks.

Now, even in the "combat" shooting realm, no one is pinning their grip safeties in any more, right???