Why does the 1911 need a grip safety?

Zak Smith · October 11, 2002, 06:24 PM

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:

if carrying Glock or a BHP (cocked & locked) is safe, then why does the 1911 need a grip safety to be "safe" ?
more moving parts to fail
more places for dirt to ingress
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.

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

thanks
Zak

gryphon · October 11, 2002, 07:02 PM

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

CastleBravo · October 11, 2002, 07:03 PM

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.

isaidme · October 11, 2002, 07:46 PM

I wish they didnt have them either.

GSB · October 11, 2002, 08:10 PM

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.

norielX · October 11, 2002, 08:35 PM

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!

Jim Watson · October 11, 2002, 08:42 PM

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.

New_comer · October 11, 2002, 08:56 PM

Quote:

So why can't we just ditch the grip safety on the 1911?

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.

NapAttack · October 11, 2002, 09:28 PM

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.

dsk · October 12, 2002, 01:20 AM

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.

BigG · October 12, 2002, 08:14 AM

DSK sed it. 1911 was designed during the era that the Cav still had horses and sabers.

Hkmp5sd · October 12, 2002, 08:34 AM

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.

Kharn · October 12, 2002, 09:22 AM

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

Pampers · October 12, 2002, 09:27 AM

"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.

Radicalcleric · October 12, 2002, 10:08 AM

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.

October 11, 2002, 06:24 PM	#1
Zak Smith Senior Member Join Date: December 12, 1999 Location: Fort Collins, Colorado, USA Posts: 2,682	Why does the 1911 need a grip safety? 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: if carrying Glock or a BHP (cocked & locked) is safe, then why does the 1911 need a grip safety to be "safe" ? more moving parts to fail more places for dirt to ingress 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. (Ok, ok, what I really want is a single-stack "BHP" that shoots .45ACP with a 1911-style trigger system...) thanks Zak

October 11, 2002, 07:02 PM	#2
gryphon Senior Member Join Date: November 21, 2000 Location: Ohio Posts: 1,069	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 __________________ Your suffering will be legendary, even in HELL!! --- PinHead, HellRaiser 2

October 11, 2002, 08:10 PM	#5
GSB Senior Member Join Date: March 20, 2001 Location: Florida Posts: 939	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. __________________ GOA, NRA Life Member - "Freedom is not a 'loophole' "

October 11, 2002, 08:35 PM	#6
norielX Senior Member Join Date: January 10, 2001 Location: Texas Posts: 164	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! __________________ -- norielX

October 12, 2002, 08:14 AM	#11
BigG Senior Member Join Date: May 19, 1999 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 4,334	DSK sed it. 1911 was designed during the era that the Cav still had horses and sabers. __________________ o "The Earth is degenerating today. Bribery and corruption abound. Children no longer obey their parents, every man wants to write a book, and it is evident that the end of the world is fast approaching." Assyrian tablet, c. 2800 BC o "In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man brave, hated, and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot." Mark Twain o "They have gun control in Cuba. They have universal health care in Cuba. So why do they want to come here?" Paul Harvey o TODAY WE CARVE OUT OUR OWN OMENS! Leonidas, Thermopylae, 480 BC

October 11, 2002, 07:03 PM	#3
CastleBravo Senior Member Join Date: December 11, 1999 Posts: 2,144	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.

October 11, 2002, 07:46 PM	#4
isaidme Senior Member Join Date: May 15, 2001 Location: Waco,Texas Posts: 99	I wish they didnt have them either.

October 11, 2002, 08:42 PM	#7
Jim Watson Senior Member Join Date: October 25, 2001 Location: Alabama Posts: 18,544	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.

October 11, 2002, 09:28 PM	#9
NapAttack Senior Member Join Date: July 27, 2001 Location: NE Ga Posts: 221	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.

October 12, 2002, 01:20 AM	#10
dsk Senior Member Join Date: June 19, 2001 Posts: 1,603	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.

October 12, 2002, 08:34 AM	#12
Hkmp5sd Senior Member Join Date: December 15, 2001 Location: Winter Haven, Florida Posts: 4,303	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. __________________ NRA Certified Instructor: Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Home Safety, Personal Protection, Range Safety Officer NRA Life Member

October 12, 2002, 09:22 AM	#13
Kharn Senior Member Join Date: January 8, 2001 Location: Maryland Posts: 1,531	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

October 12, 2002, 09:27 AM	#14
Pampers Senior Member Join Date: October 7, 2000 Location: In the Lost State of Franklin Posts: 482	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. __________________ Your Most Humble & Obedient Servant Fred J. Drumheller NRA Life NRA Golden Eagle

October 12, 2002, 10:08 AM	#15
Radicalcleric Senior Member Join Date: November 21, 2001 Posts: 645	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.