Why does the 1911 need a grip safety?

Z

Zak Smith

New member
In short: Why does the 1911 "need" a grip safety? Or why do so many people insist that a grip safety is required on a 1911 for it to be "safe"?

I am "coming around" as far as pistols are concerned. I started with HKs and Glocks, but in the last year I'm starting to appreciate the time-tested and "classic" designs: the S&W N-frame, the Browning Hi-Power, the model 1911.

I've got the S&W and the BHP covered, but am still shopping around for the "right" 1911. The question arises: Why the grip safety? I know that it was in the original design because the military requested it.

My take is this:
  1. if carrying Glock or a BHP (cocked & locked) is safe, then why does the 1911 need a grip safety to be "safe" ?
  2. more moving parts to fail
  3. more places for dirt to ingress
  4. a "high" grip, or otherwise nonstandard grip, may not disengage the safety, preventing the pistol from firing - it's gotta go bang when I pull the trigger
So why can't we just ditch the grip safety on the 1911? Please point out the error of my ways. :D

(Ok, ok, what I really want is a single-stack "BHP" that shoots .45ACP with a 1911-style trigger system...)

thanks
Zak
 
G

gryphon

New member
IMHO it would not be a 1911 if it didn't have a grip safety. It might be a 1910, but not a 1911. There are more things than just a grip safety that make a BHP what it is.

As you stated, it was part of the original military specs. As far as it being any safer, that is up to debate. I like having it there, especially after hearing some stories on some of the boards about guys running through the woods, only to later realize the only reason they still had their 1911 was that they had the lanyard attached and it was dragging behind them. The grip safety could and very well may have prevented a discharge in that instance.

Probably a very remote occurance for most people but you never know. I hardly notice the grip safety anymore, so it really is an after thought to me.

The 1911 is just one of those things that is indelibly engraved into the hearts of many. It's got history, rhetoric, nostalgia.

Why still do we have the grip safety? The short answer is what my mom used to tell me all the time - BECAUSE!

Later
 
C

CastleBravo

New member
Really, it doesn't. It is a remnant from the original development to meet Army requirements. That said, you can always have it "pinned" so you don't have to worry about breaking/engagement issues. Some gunsmiths won't disable safties on general principles, but IIRC Dane Burns does it on his personal guns (though he doesn't recommend it for most people). I've shot alot of rounds through 1911s and never had one not go "bang" because of the grip safety. Certain people, because of their hand shape and/or grip I guess, have problems reliably engaging 1911 grip safties, though.

Nice thing about 1911 grip safties: you can swap them out to change the shape of the grip to suit you better. :cool:
 
G

GSB

New member
I'm pretty sure JMB didn't think it needed one. As the others have said, it was added to satisfy the requirements of the military, but I believe he was on record as expressing disdain for the thing.
 
N

norielX

New member
I thought it was the other way around...

Didn't JMB intend for the grip safety to be the only safety on the gun, while the thumb safety was added per Army request?

I love the grip safety on the 1911. It makes the 1911 grip even more customizable. I mean, you've got the grips, the mainspring housing, and the grip safety. Take away the grip safety, and you're only one more step away from a Ballester-Molina!
 
J

Jim Watson

New member
Think about it. Even if you don't feel a need for the safety action, most of the lockwork is installed through the back of the grip frame. No grip safety, right on to a Star.

But there is (or was) a way. Rescomp in South Africa and Arminex in the US (in the early 80s) made one-piece inserts that served as MSH and filled the grip safety area. Arminex is long out of business and I haven't seen the filler in Rescomp ads for some time.
 
N

New_comer

New member
So why can't we just ditch the grip safety on the 1911?
Click to expand...
Because we can't mess around with tradition.

Besides, you could always tape it down, like what a couple of my buddies did to theirs. ;)
 
N

NapAttack

New member
I don't think a 1911 "needs" a grip safety. I'm one the ones that has a problem activating the grip safety. I shot IPSC for a while and had Masters check my grip and most of the top shooters have theirs pinned or disabled. So it's not my grip.

Leagle eagles can say what they will but all my 1911s, including my carry piece have the grip safety disabled. I'll deal with the legal hassles when and if they should ever occur. I'll take my chances explaining disabling the safety.
 
D

dsk

New member
The grip safety was added per Cavalry requirements that the pistol be made immediately safe should the firer release his grip on the pistol. The idea was that a rider on a horse might let go of his pistol during a rough ride, and they didn't want it to go off and kill the horse or rider as it banged around at the end of its lanyard. The thumb safety was an added safety feature to help appease the Cavalry as well, since they were opposed to the "newfangled" automatics and felt they were neither as safe nor as reliable as revolvers.
 
H

Hkmp5sd

New member
Another way to "eliminate" the grip safety without pinning or permanently disabling it is to use one of the Hogue Handall grips and fit it over the grip safety. May require a little trimming to get it to fit.

Of course, Hogue does not recommend this technique.
 
K

Kharn

New member
If you dont like the grip safety, buy a Ballester Molina. Its like a 1911 without the grip safety and a few other difference (safety locks the hammer, not the sear, etc) .

Kharn
 
P

Pampers

New member
Because JMB Said So!

"if carrying Glock or a BHP (cocked & locked) is safe, then why does the 1911 need a grip safety to be "safe"

Back when I carried a BHP, there were several times, when I removed it from the holster at the end of the day, that I found the thumb safety disengaged. NOT a happy feeling! Don't like Condition 0 (Cocked & Unlocked)!

And as to Glocks being "Perfectly" safe, I personally know at least two people who have shot themselves in the a$$ while reholstering their Glocks. Yes I know that they shouldn't have had their fingers on the trigger, but it WOULDN'T HAPPEN if they had a thumb safety!

I've carried a 1911 for several years now, and have NEVER had the thumb safety come off! Based on this, I'd trust a 1911 without the grip safety before I would my BHP, but I prefer BOTH, especially since they're both there. Besides, the grip safety has NO deliterious effect on the use of the gun, and the new (OLD) Schwartz device firing pin block found on Series II Kimbers DOES NOT effect trigger pull the way it does on a Series 80 Colt.
 
R

Radicalcleric

New member
As others have noted, the army asked for the grip safety. In years past shooters disabled it by pinning or taping. In today's world of lwayers and law suits I would strongly advise against rendering any safety device inoperable. Most people never notice the grip safety when shooting and I don't recall ever hearing of anyone suffering a mechanical failure due to its presence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top