1911-style grip "safety" - why, oh why!?

L

labgrade

Member In Memoriam
Recent "newby/I need a 9mm" thread brings this up again.

Why does the 1911-style still have that antiquated grip "safety"-thing?

Yeah, yeah, I know "in case you fall off yer horse"-thing. But other than that ....?

In all seriousness, what could be more functional/elegant, than the BHP-style safety?

You draw, wipe safety/aim, fire. Your "extra" safety is between your ears & why the "need" for that stupid (I do hate it) & damnable grip "safety?"

What added benifit does it provide?

I could never see the need, or desire for that darned thing .....
 
L

lonegunman

New member
Why does a grip safety bother you so much?

It deactivates without any effort on your part, doesnt slow firing down at all, and still allows for a satisfactory grip.

Personally I would feel less comfortable carrying a 1911 C&L without one.
 
G

Gewehr98

New member
Wouldn't be a 1911 without the grip safety...

Since the Army forced John Moses Browning to include the feature on his prototype before they'd accept it for government use. He didn't have much love for the device either, and his later refinement of the 1911, the 9mm Hi-Power, omitted it.

Of course, the Hi-Power introduced something else of dubious merit, the magazine safety, but that's best left to another discussion.;)
 
P

Pampers

New member
BHP Safety

No, the BHP does not have a grip safety, and JMB didn't want on on the 1911, BUT ... I've had the thumb safety work off my BHP when I was carrying it! Maybe that's why there is a thumb safety offered for Glocks, and why The Springfield XD/HS2000 has a grip safety.
 
C

cheygriz

New member
Grip safeties and magazine disconnectors are the nightmares created by ignorant bureaucrats. They serve no function whatsoever.
 
C

Charlie Lima

New member
I must be doing something wrong. Been shooting M1911(A1)'s since 1962 ( first go round = MCRD San Diego \ Camp Matthews).
In all that time I have never found the grip safety to cause the problems every one who snivels about it seems to have.
Kinda puts it into the same catagory as the "uneeded belt" on some rifle cartridges. You know the unworkable belt that has been around since 1912.
Mebbe I just got too much grip strength from those years of milking cows.
 
V

VictorLouis

New member
The sear on a 1911 is very light weight.

It barely has the mass needed to move off of the cocking notch if the pistol is subjected to a blow. It falls to the half-cock, or intercept shelf if it does. The trigger, OTOH, does have a lot of weight, and can move further. The grip safety serves a valuable function in blocking the trigger bow from tripping the sear, and thus, firing the pistol.

As to those who wish to defeat it, for whatever reason, why bother to pin it? Just remove it and grind down or cut off its engagement arm. That's a lot simpler and less drastic than altering your gun's frame.:eek:
 
D

db4

New member
Before the humped grip safeties were available i had to pin them, as i didn't consistently depress one with a high-thumb grip. Easy and reversible fix is to drill a .125" hole vertically in the flat on the bottom of the safety and loctite in a matching pin, cut flush with the lip that catches the msh. Holds the safety in without modifying the frame and is easily removed when you sell the gun.
 
C

C.R.Sam

New member
I doubt that Browning was coerced into putting on the grip safety by the U.S.Army.

Both his 1903 9mm Military (F.N.) and his 1903 Pocket .32s featured the "Browning grip safety".

He submitted two different .45ACP pistols in response to Army interest in 1905. Both had grip safetys. One had a nearly vertical grip and was hammerless. The other had a more angled grip and exposed hammer. The exposed hammer model was selected for further trials and eventually became the 1911. After it had been in civillian production since 1906. (With modifications during the five years of civillian production.)

I have a picture of the pilot model of the gun that evolved into the 1911. It has grip safety but NO MANUAL safety.

J.M.Browning's son John wrote that his dad didn't care which the Army chose......as long as they were satisfied with one of them.

Sam
 
D

DanP

New member
Hmm, I don't even give the grip safety on my 1911 a second thought... doesn't bother or distract me, just a non issue.

On the plus side it makes me feel more comfortable for carrying cocked and locked.

On the downside it makes it slightly more awkward to de-cock.

But really just a non-issue, what am I missing?:confused:
 
S

Sundance

New member
On the downside it makes it slightly more awkward to de-cock.
Click to expand...
The correct way to decock a 1911 is to drop the magazine, clear the chamber by cycling the slide, check again to be sure it is empty, then point in a safe direction and dry fire. You should never lower the hammer manually with the thumb. It is dangerous with a loaded chamber, and can ruin a good trigger pull by damaging the sear regardless. Of course, this is going to get the folks gassed up who are afraid of C&L and like to carry hammer down on a live round.
 
S

Shmackey

New member
Of course, this is going to get the folks gassed up who are afraid of C&L and like to carry hammer down on a live round.
Click to expand...

Better than watching them shoot their feet off. If you don't like Condition 1 or 3, don't carry a 1911. Hammer down on a live round = wrong.
 
J

James K

Member In Memoriam
Hi, VictorLouis,

Pin it out of action if you must, but I don't ever recommend disabling the grip safety by grinding off the engagement arm. That will look like the safety is functional when it is not, a poor idea with any safety.

Jim
 
C

Christopher II

New member
I've never liked the 1911 grip safety. I've tried three different brands, and none of them would disengage with 100% reliability. It's a useless canard on an otherwise fine sidearm.

- Chris
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top