A question on 1911 grip safeties

[tipoc]

When ever I have wanted to decock a 1911 one handed I have done it the traditional way...you pull the hammer all the way to the rear just past the full cock position, until it engages the grip safety then you pull the trigger and lower the hammer either to the 1/2 cock safety position (or quarter cock) or lower it all the way down. This method works all all 1911s I've owned with both spur and commander style hammers until recently.

Last year I bought a Dan Wesson C-Bob to try it out. The Wesson had a Ed Brown style grip safety with a memory bump on it. It also has a deep cut out for the hammer spur (or what passed for one) on it. When the hammer was pulled to the rear it did not depress the grip safety. This made decocking a two handed proposition.

Now this Wesson was the first gun I've owned with a Brown type grip safety. Since then I've taken to looking at every 1911 I see for this function. Colt has taken to placing a type of this safety on their guns and it no longer decocks as they do with other type safeties. The same was true of a recent Kimber I looked at.

You can see on most other style grip safeties that their is a small mark on the top rear of the safety from where the rear of the hammer touches and depresses the safety as the slide travel rearward. The touch is only momentary and if the grip safety is already engaged by the hand there is likely no touch at all.

I think I understand why the Brown type safeties intentionally don't do this.

My question is: does this feature of Brownings original design (the hammer engaging the grip safety when pulled all the way to the rear just past the full cock position) also serve another function, does it effect anything else? If so the Brown type safety must bypass that function somehow.

tipoc

 

[RickB]

I saw a post on this same topic on 1911forum.
Someone was asking about different hammers that might have larger spurs (rings) that would depress the grip safety before the hammer bottomed against some part of the frame.
I don't know if the Brown beavertail is designed specifically to prevent one-handed decocking, but, of course it begs the question; why are you decocking a 1911?
If you are going to shoot, you can't do so with a decocked hammer, and if you are not, unload it and drop the hammer by pulling the trigger and letting the hammer fall.
I have a 1918 Colt, which originally had the long hammer spur, but I installed an earlier, short-spur hammer in it, curious about the effect it would have on hammer bite, but didn't check to see if the one-handed decocking "feature" was still available?
If not, then that would be evidence that the feature was not intended, as the long-spur hammer wasn't introduced until the gun had been in production for a couple of years.
I have more recently made gun, with an early M1911 grip safety, and the hammer in that gun, a SVI product, does not overcock enough to allow the spur to contact the grip safety, contact being near the root of the hammer. I'm sure I have manually decocked it at some time, but honestly can't say if I'v ever tried to do so with one hand?

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I've been shooting 1911s since 1967. Although I know about the one-hand decocking and I understand why John M. Browning designed it that way, in 47 years I have never decocked a 1911 one-handed.

The fact that something can be done doesn't mean it should be done. The "feature" was designed in to accommodate mounted cavalry, so they could keep one hand free to control the horse while manipulating the pistol with the other hand. I'm not in the cavalry and I don't shoot from horseback, so the ability to decock one-handed (or the lack of same) is of no importance to me.

 

[James K]

The grip safety was designed and intended for one purpose - to prevent the gun from firing if it were not being held by a person. The requirement was stated by the cavalry, which was concerned that if the pistol were dropped in battle, that it could fire and injure a horse or rider. The ability to use the hammer spur to activate the grip safety in decocking the gun was not, IMHO, intentional or part of the design, only an accidental and incidental capability. I can recall no part of the Army manual or training that involved one-hand decocking of a loaded pistol, and decocking of an empty gun was done simply by pulling the trigger.

As for the mark on the grip safety, it is caused by the hammer, but the hammer does not contact the grip safety from being pushed back by the slide. The situation is that when the gun fires, the fast-moving slide kicks the hammer back out of contact with the slide, so it bounces off the grip safety and re-contacts the slide when it strikes the bottom of the firing pin tunnel. It is also that rapidly moving hammer that causes the "hammer bite" in some hand/gun combinations; the web of the thumb is not "pinched" between the hammer and the grip safety, the hammer simply strikes the flesh hard enough to raise a welt.

Jim

 

[tipoc]

As for the mark on the grip safety, it is caused by the hammer, but the hammer does not contact the grip safety from being pushed back by the slide. The situation is that when the gun fires, the fast-moving slide kicks the hammer back out of contact with the slide, so it bounces off the grip safety and re-contacts the slide when it strikes the bottom of the firing pin tunnel. It is also that rapidly moving hammer that causes the "hammer bite" in some hand/gun combinations; the web of the thumb is not "pinched" between the hammer and the grip safety, the hammer simply strikes the flesh hard enough to raise a welt.

Yes I'm aware of that.

The point of my question is: is there any other purpose to this feature other than decocking? Does it serve any other purpose?

tipoc

 

[James K]

My point is that it is not a "feature", it is something that was discovered by some shooters that can assist them in doing something that the designer of the gun did not intend to be done.

Actually, I suppose it does something else if you really want to be inventive. It can be used for slip hammering the gun, but I strongly recommend against that idea.

Jim

 

[RickB]

the web of the thumb is not "pinched" between the hammer and the grip safety, the hammer simply strikes the flesh hard enough to raise a welt.

I have had a M1911A1 pistol literally dangling from my hand, with the web pinched between the hammer and grip safety.
For most people, the problem is probably a matter of the hammer "pecking" at the web, but pinching is not an imaginary problem.

I'm with James, in that I'm not so sure that the design of the hammer and grip safety were intended to allow, or promote one-handed decocking.

Are you asking if there's some reason for the hammer to contact the grip safety as the slide cycles? No. The safety is already depressed, the hammer functions independently of the safety, so it's not like the disconnector being depressed by the slide both to prevent full-auto fire and also to prevent out-of-battery fire, where there's a dual purpose.
That the hammer reaches back far enough to touch the grip safety could very well be a coincidence, and I'll check when I get home, but I don't know if the original, short M1911 hammer, that was on the pistols in the 1912-1914 period will even allow it.

 

[Jim Watson]

I went through a phase of "Condition 2" carry.
I had a wide spur hammer, probably an early 1911A1, similar to early 1911 short spur, and a GM grip safety put on a Commander for the purpose.
It will one handed decock if you feel froggy.
Not having a spirit guide, I can't comment on the intentions of Mr Browning or the Army Board.

Although I have long since gone to Condition 1, I can say I had no problems decocking (two handed) or recocking that Commander. Nor did I have any difficulty decocking my CZ75 "pre-B" with spur hammer to get to a DA fIrst shot.

Things are different now. A burr hammer gives a lot less purchase for the thumb and the beavertail blocks easy thumb access. I won't do it.

 

[James K]

Hi, Rick,

I have had folks show me how the thumb web can be pinched, but you are the only person who has said it actually happened to them. Usually, there is a red welt, sometimes even bloody, but no indication of actual pinching. That free-swinging hammer can certainly hurt like heck; I can't imagine the pain if the flesh were actually pinched!

Jim

 

[jmstr]

I am confused by what it going on, and what is being asked.

I have fit a few grip safeties successfully [8 or 9 at least]. I have not fit them to Kimber Swarze-equipped guns or Series 80 guns though.

The part that is confusing me is that I don't see how the hammer engages the grip safety.

you pull the hammer all the way to the rear just past the full cock position, until it engages the grip safety

The grip safety doesn't direct any action upon the hammer.

• The grip safety has a bar that prevents the trigger bow from pushing to the rear.
• Moving the bow to the rear moves the sear.
• The sear's motion allows the hammer to fall.

I am just trying to figure out how a properly fit grip safety could allow you to decock a gun safely with one hand. Two handed seems to be required to have the grip safety move past the trigger bar, so that you can pull it as you indicated.

I understand you are saying that the first 1911 in question moved the grip safety and allowed you to decock it one-handed. However, that also seems worry-some to me.

If the grip safety can be 'bumped' by cocking the hammer to full rear extension and then it will allow the hammer to swing all the way forward, the spring on the grip safety seems too weak, or you are moving the hammer way too fast [unless unloaded].

I see that you are discussing pulling the trigger and moving the hammer, all with one hand. However, I don't see how you can pull the trigger unless the grip safety is pressed down.

Was your first 1911's grip safety so weak [spring] that it moved easily, and the new one had a firmer spring?

It is possible to change the grip safety engagement on the trigger bar so that there is less motion necessary to have engagement. The new one may have the maximum amount of material blocking the trigger bow, and the old one may have the minimum.

I have had safeties that allowed the trigger to move when they were depressed about 1/16". I have had safeties that required a full depression before the trigger bow was released. I try to split the difference when fitting one.

Maybe this engagement area is fit differently on the new grip safety: requiring more full depression before moving the trigger bow, which releases the sear and the hammer for firing/decocking.

The good thing is that this depth of depression of GS makes the gun safer. However, it may require so much 'grip' to depress that you are putting sideways pressure on the gun that affects accuracy.

However, I am still confused by your reference to the hammer engaging the grip safety.

That isn't how it is supposed to work. Engaging the safety, to me, means putting the gun in a 'safe' condition. Hammer motion could only come about by 'disengaging' the grip safety.

However, the hand 'engages' with the grip safety to disengage the mechanism.

I am probably overthinking things.

Check out this link: STI cutaway of 1911

Check the box to the left to 'hide' the safety, and 'hide' the frame. This will allow you to see the sear/hammer/grip safety/trigger bow and how they work together.

 

[Jim Watson]

I suggest you get the use of a real 1911 with no beavertail and give it a try.
Thumb the hammer all the way back. It will contact the top of the grip safety and rock its blocking arm out of engagement with the trigger.
Hold the hammer back to keep the grip safety disengaged while you PULL THE TRIGGER and hold it back.
Then EASE the hammer all the way down and release the trigger.
Now, wasn't that simple?

 

[jmstr]

Yep. Makes me feel foolish that i couldn't visualize that. Still think 'engage' should be swapped to 'hammer disengages grip safety'.

But i see the mechanism you mean now. I just thought the pivot area of the grip safety stopped the hammer before it struck the tail end of it.

Like the frame of a hi power or star stops rearward motion, but the meat of the grip safety that is between the frame tanfs and which the thumb safety goes through.

Mea culpa.

 

[RickB]

The original, short M1911 hammer will overcock enough to depress the grip safety for one-handed decocking. Still don't know if that's a design feature, or a case of unintended consequences?
I started a thread on 1911forum, so let's see if someone comes up with something definitive.

 

[tipoc]

I'm glad I asked this question cause I was hoping for a quick reply that mated with what I knew already but that didn't quite happen so I had to look it up.

On Feb. 17, 1910 Browning applied for a patent number 984,519. It was granted about a year later, Feb. 14, 1911. I'm attaching a link to it and take a look at original page 7 (pdf pg. 10), beginning section 10.

Browning discusses the design of the grip safety and what it does in addition to being a safety and when gripped allows the trigger to be depressed and fire. Specifically the portion of the grip safety at the top rear that projects beyond the frame and why he designed it that way.

At this point the gun was not yet the 1911. But the features decribed below were carried over to the final gun...the 1911.

I'll quote some here but the entire paragraphs are long so I omit a bit...

Heretofore in the pistols of this class, when the hammer was cocked ready for firing and it became necessary to lower the hammer to the safety position without allowing it to touch the firing-pin, it required both hands of the user to accomplish this act...

Browning then goes on to describe why it takes two hands to lower the hammer, the right hand is depressing the grip safety and pulls the trigger. It must remain in place doing this and so the right thumb can't be used to safely lower the hammer...

Consequently the lowering of the hammer had to be performed by the other hand, this is a serious drawback in a military arm, as a soldier and especially a mounted soldier does not in action have both hands free for such use.

He goes on...

To overcome this difficulty, I have provided the grip lever, w with a projecting nose w2 in rear of it's pivot, which stands closely in rear of, and below the hammer when cocked, and the hammer is so fitted that it may be drawn rearward somewhat farther than to it's cocked position. When the hammer is drawn fully back it strikes the nose w2 and, by pressing the same downward, it causes the grip lever to turn on it's pivot forcing the lower portion into the grip, thereby releasing the trigger. By this arrangement the thumb of the hand grasping the grip needs not to be kept at the side of the grip for pressing in the grip-lever, but the thumb may be applied to the hammer and through the same operate the grip-lever to release the trigger, then the trigger may be operated with the first finger of the same hand to relaease the hammer and finally the thumb, still applied to the hammer, may allow the same to slowly descend to the safety position, without requiring the aid of the other hand.

Now this feature (specifically the portion that projected beyond the frame) was added in 1910 and it made one handed decocking possible. It was not an accidental feature it was by design. Over the next year the thumb safety and plunger tube were added before the gun was adopted in 1911. So this one handed decocking feature pre-dated the thumb safety which was added to make it safe to make a gun safe while on horseback, or running without having to decock it. You would think it made the idea of decocking the 1911 obsolete or unnecessary. But it didn't they kept in the half cock safety notch and they retain the feature that Browning describes above. They never took it away.

I knew this but my question was does it do anything else?

I'm glad I looked this up because Browning says that it does. Two interconnected things which he describes on the same page, it helps prevent hammer bite and keeps the hand from riding up so far that it interferes with the movement of the slide.

Well it had to be extended some later but it still acted to allow for one handed decocking till the Ed Brown style grip safety it seems.

I'll keep looking, maybe it does something else as well. The full document is below.

http://forum.m1911.org/images/Browning1911Patent.pdf

tipoc

 

[tipoc]

Now to be completely straight Brownings patent of 1913 cover the thumb safety as well and his description of that is interesting. But first he notes that the features from his previous patents remain in effect...

All the parts thus far referred to may be and are here shown as of the same construction and mode of operation as fully set forth in my said Patent No. 984,519, and forming no part of the present invention require no further description or explanation herein, except so far as certain features will be referred to hereinafter.

Heretofore pistols of this class were provided with automatic safety devices which made it impossible to fire one or several shots unless a cartridge was in the barrel, a charged magazine in the grip and all parts were in the proper closed and locked condition, the hammer cocked and the grip properly grasped to hold the pistol in the firing position. If, with the pistol thus made ready for instant use, the occasion for firing or for continued firing had passed, and it was desired to make the pistol temporarily safe for carrying, it was necessary to lower the hammer to the safety position, and special means were provided for enabling the lowering of the hammer to be performed, if necessary, by the use of only the hand holding the pistol. Experience, however, has shown that the exigencies of active military service make it at times necessary that the pistol be carried for a longer or shorter time with a loaded cartridge in the barrel, a charged magazine in its seat and with the hammer cocked, so as to still remain ready for instantly firing a maximum number of shots without requiring any initial movement, except the pulling of the trigger. At the same time, it is as necessary that the pistol can be made safe to positively prevent its accidental discharge while being so carried. For fulfilling, as nearly as possible, these necessary but contradictory requirements, an additional manually operated combined slide-lock and hammer-lock of novel construction and with additional functions has been provided on the pistol, which serves to at will lock the breech-slide and the firing mechanism and make the pistol positively safe against discharge though a cartridge is in the chamber and the hammer is cocked, or to at will release these parts and make the pistol ready for firing; with this added device the lock-ing or releasing of the slide and of the hammer require only a slight pressure by the thumb of the hand grasping the grip of the pistol, without demanding such attention, care and exertion as are required for cocking the hammer or for releasing the lowering the same.

In other words the addition of the thumb safety (and plunger tube) makes continually cocking and decocking the hammer and the care and attention this requires while in action superfluous. But the gun retained the capability for one handed decocking along with the other advantages of the grip safety.

Also, to be clear, by the "safety position" he's referring to the half cock notch.

http://forum.m1911.org/documents/Browning's 1911 Patent of 1913-04-23.txt

http://forum.m1911.org/documents/Browning's 1911 Patent of 1913-04-23.pdf

tipoc

 

[cecILL]

Would not want to decock one handed with a loaded 1911, but have decocked thousands of times with one unloaded. Why? Don't know. Is good exercise for the hand, and familiarity with any weapon can not be a bad thing.

 

[2ndsojourn]

Thanks tipoc,
I never knew all that and I'll have to check out one-handed de-cocking when I get home. With an unloaded gun, of course.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Thank you, tipoc, for providing the documentation to support what I have taken as a given for many years. IIRC, I think I learned it from 1911Tuner, who is intimately familiar with the Browning patent for the M1911.

 

[tipoc]

From CecIll,

Would not want to decock one handed with a loaded 1911, but have decocked thousands of times with one unloaded. Why? Don't know. Is good exercise for the hand, and familiarity with any weapon can not be a bad thing.

I think that's key...knowing the gun. What it can do and why.

1911 Tuner often points out that things in Browning's designs often do more than one thing. It's true here also.

Grip safeties with extended beavertails (or ducktails) and memory bumps are aimed at making sure the grip safety is properly depressed and the gun sits lower in the hand. But in the case of the Brown type they by-pass another important function of the grip safety, the one hand decocking aspect. I don't know if Brown intended to do away with that feature or if he was just making a safety that could be easily manufactured and installed in many guns with a minimum of fitting. This may be why the hammer cut out for the spur, or crown, in his safeties is so deep, so that a variety of hammers can be fit and none touch the grip safety in a manner needed to activate it and allow for decocking.

When a change like this is made it effects other functions in the gun.

The decocking aspect may not be important to most shooters who have never considered decocking a 1911 one handed or two, but it was an aspect intentionally built into the gun and placed there for a purpose. It was kept even after the thumb safety was added to the design.

It's also a reminder of how the military and Browning thought the 1911 would be carried and used and the thumb safety engaged.

How we use and carry the 1911 has evolved alot over the decades. Some things have been added to the gun that may not be as useful as their designers thought. Other things in the gun changed that have been very useful.

tipoc

 

[Sevens]

Easy for me to say NOW that the answer is revealed...
but the hammer's interaction with the grip safety that allows a user to decock one-handed would be (seems to me) a frickin' Christmas Miracle if it "just so happened" to fit in such a way as to make it possible to do exactly that.

And on a firearm designed by perhaps the greatest single human mind in man's history on the subject of firearm's design. Really.

It would be like George Carlin saying something extremely funny and a group of bystanders breaking down what he said and coming to the conclusion that it was a complete accident and entirely unintended that it simply happened to be hilarious. A pure random event, with no comedic intention. Suuuuuuure.