Why aren't 1911s fitted with a decocker instead of a manual safety?

Guess because JMB did'nt want one-
Never used a manual safety

 

Maybe you need to learn a little more about the platform because the grip safety is automatically activated when picking up the pistol and the thumb safety is there to keep you safe while carrying in holster or until needed.

shoot safe, shoot straight, and have fun

 

I'm not a SA 1911 guy...but I believe a decocker only works with a DA pistol. By design it won't work with a SA only pistol. Double Action, by definition is cocking the hammer by pulling the trigger. Please correct me if I'm wrong on that. And it's just plain safer to use the thumb safety, while carrying on a hair trigger SA pistol. If you decock a SA pistol you will have to rack the slide again to put the gun in battery. Decocking a DA pistol still allows firing the gun. An XD gets away with just the grip safety because of it's longer, Glock style pull.

Here's a DA/SA simulator...operate the decocker and see how it works:
http://www.genitron.com/basics/beretta92/new-beretta-92.html

Here's a SA simulator:
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1H3IFJXxyEs[/ame]

While you're at it, operate a striker fired pistol:
http://www.genitron.com/Basics/Glock23/P2Glock.html

 

I carry my 1911s 'cocked & locked' so no need to decock it.

 

1911s dont need no stinking de-cocker!

 

if you picked up a 1911 and shot it, then you used the grip safety. the 1911 is perfect the way it was designed and therefor doesn't need a decocker.

 

Cannot improve upon perfection!!!

EVERY semi auto pistol to come after 1911 is some attempt to improve on perfection....ALL have failed!

 

beavertail is the grip safety. then there is the thumb safety, which i guess you are calling a manual safety, then there is a half cock safety some of them have also.

in it's present configuration the 1911 has been working just fine for over a hundred years. if it needed a decocker for some insane reason, then you would have to think someone would have designed one for it at some point in the past. the 1911 has pretty much remained unchanged other than minor ones since the beginning, so therefor it doesn't need it IMO.

 

thank you FMJ. like the old saying goes, " if ain't broke, don't fix it! " the 1911 ain't broke, it don't need fixing. it is perfect just the way it was designed.

 

The 1911 is designed to be carried in the ready with a chambered round, the hammer cocked and the thumb safety activated (condition 1), if you have never used the thumb safety, then you haven't carried a ready 1911 in a safe manner, and you've been fortunate that you didn't get a accidental discharge, unless you carried in the Israelie Masad method (condition 4) then you wouldn't need to activate and deactivate the thumb safety.

 

This isnt the glock section

 

not true, the FB Radom VIS 35 is single action with a decocker

 

if John Browning had felt like there was a need for a decocker on his pistol design, then i am pretty sure he would have put one on it. as he didn't, then IMO it isn't needed.

well buddy this is the 1911 forum, maybe if you are going to post threads about the 1911, then it's you who needs to learn the terminology! the proper term is grip safety and thumb safety. learning the 1911 platform and it's terminology would make your posts more coherent and understandable.

there are many pistols with decockers and i own a pistol that has one. i am happy with it, but i wouldn't want one on any 1911. if you want a pistol with a decocker, then go buy one.

 

Well...there's always some gun that breaks the norm. If you decock that weapon can you fire without racking the slide? If so, it's a DA or form of a DA weapon.That's what a modern decocker allows and that's how I think of it's use. If it doesn't allow firing after it's engaged it wouldn't take the place of a safety...A safety and a decocker to me... allows for firing not disableing the weapon.

 

This question is quickly answered and doesnt need several pages of debate. JMB didnt design the 1911 with a decocker "100 years ago" BECAUSE IT DOESNT NEED ONE. 101 years later,IT STILL DOESNT NEED ONE.