Why a grip safety on 1911 ?

[labgrade]

Posted here for the diversity.

I've only shot 1991 style pistols perhaps 1/2 dozen times so don't have much familiarity with 'em. I do ccw a BHP daily.

For a military pistol, I'd guess the grip safety makes some sense in that quite a few who aren't very familiar would be using/carrying it. Perhaps the more safety features the better.

But. For a more "sporting," "expert-level" defense pistol, what's the point? As with a BHP, you already have two safeties - one one the pistol & another betwixt the ears.

I've heard that you can spotweld the grip safety, thereby rendering non-functional, but I'd think that someone would offer a more "BHP-style" 1991 frame with no grip safety at all.

Beats me, but it seems way redundant.

Any reason to really have it?

 

[Gonzo_308]

If you don't like the grip safety don't use it!

Simply get a firm, proper grip on the pistol, take aim and fire. disregard the grip safety completely

Seriously, for the vast majority of 1911 users the grip safety isn't a problem and is as much a part of the gun as the thumb safety lever or the grip panels. they are what distinguishes the old soldier from everything else.

If you remove ther grip safety(blasphemy) It wouldn't be a 1911!

For a design so many find fault with it sure does have a following.
Hell, It's the most copied design in history.

 

[labgrade]

Don't misunderstand my question.

I'm "familiar" enough w/1991s that I'm fully aware of the pistol's following, strengths, etc. I like it - just haven't shot it all that much - & am not "finding fault."

Just curious as to the apparent redundancy.

 

[croyance]

It was originally mandated for military trials. The grip safety was so if a calvalry soldier dropped his pistol while shooting from horseback the gun would not discharge.

You could argue that it is antiquated and that there is no further need for a grip safety. You could go on to point out that revolvers with grip safeties are no longer made. But I digress.

Inertial firing pin safeties came later.

 

[Jim V]

Well, sort of, Croyance. The original military requirements was for a pistol with a self-actuating safety that required no action by the shooter to disengage or engage. In hand - off safe, out of hand - on safe. The thumb safety was added later, the M-1910 looked just like a 1911 w/out a thumb safety.

Since the Cavalry would be the largest user of the new pistols, they were the ones to test 'em. It was only after a few mounts ate a 200 grain (the original bullet weight) bullet fired by a reflex squeeze of the trigger was the requirement for an additional safety made.

The pistols and magazines were all tied to the Cavalryman with lanyards if the Pony Soldier used all his pistol ammo and let the 1911 hang there were 3 flopping, swinging things hitting some poor horse and its rider.

 

[Lavan]

All the above is true PLUS....it is QUIET! I knew an Iwo Jima marine who kept his with safety off but relied on the grip safety at night. He could just pick it up instead of making a.............
...............C L I C K ! ....................

 

[Archie]

Old John designed it without...

but the "deep thinking managers" mandated it. Not that many of the "managers" actually carried a 1911 pistol afterward and used it in the extreme.

Much like modern day "deep thinking managers" who don't understand and therefore fear cocked and locked carry.

 

[dsk]

Those who feel a grip safety should be pinned should really just have it "sensitized" instead. The trigger stop can be shaved down a bit to where the safety still works, but the slightest pressure on it will disable it. I have noticed some factory grip safeties have to be fully depressed before the will allow trigger movement.

 

[CastleBravo]

Actually, I consider the main advantage of the grip safety that it can be switched out to change the ergonomics of the pistol to your liking... not so much the "safety" feature itself.