I just watched a James Yeager video and he said people use to pin the grip safety on the 1911. I am really not a fan of grip safeties so I can see why you might want to do it. Anyone here have a pinned grip safety or seen 1911s with the grip safety pinned in place ?
Marshall357
If one of the 1911 companies actually produced a model with a "pinned" or "modified" grip safety, along with a series 80 FP safety, I think they would sell a lot of guns.
You would have a "safer" gun than the series 70, grip safety models, and not have the problem of "maybe" getting the proper grip to disengage it.
"Listen to the consumer"....Oh MY.
You would have a "safer" gun than the series 70, grip safety models, and not have the problem of "maybe" getting the proper grip to disengage it.
"Listen to the consumer"....Oh MY.
I don't particularly like them. My guess, is if you shoot a lot, eventually one will have an incident when the GS doesn't disengage when it should (it has happen to me in a match or two). If someone has never, ever, not once experienced this - great, and kudos to you...I don't see them doing anything outside possibly preventing a gun going off when it is dropped (weigh-in if you see another realistic example).
I ordered my first 1911 with the GS disabled last month, it is an SVI. Not sure if other semi-Custom/custom shops are willing to pin the grip safety, I am guessing that they each have their own policy and some may require you to sign some ridiculous affidavit/waiver (like some do with 3# or less triggers).
I ordered my first 1911 with the GS disabled last month, it is an SVI. Not sure if other semi-Custom/custom shops are willing to pin the grip safety, I am guessing that they each have their own policy and some may require you to sign some ridiculous affidavit/waiver (like some do with 3# or less triggers).
In the original JMB design, there was only a grip safety. Army made him add the thumb safety but retained the grip safety. I have not owned a gun on which my grip safety failed to function. These days, I mostly carry a J-frame anyway. It is T-shirt and shorts weather here and will be till December or so.
I like the grip safety. Been carrying/using 1911's since the late 70's and never had a single problem. Never felt any need to disable it.
I guess everyones hands / grip differs though, so to each his own.
As far as the legal ramifications go, I believe there is a big difference between the gun never having a grip safety and a user disabled grip safety. I absolutely believe it could be used against you.
I guess everyones hands / grip differs though, so to each his own.
As far as the legal ramifications go, I believe there is a big difference between the gun never having a grip safety and a user disabled grip safety. I absolutely believe it could be used against you.
I would like to see the rule, regulation or requirement stating that a firearm used in a self-defense shooting cannot have been customized.
I don't have firm reference on this, but I'm confident it was intended to be carried Condition Three (empty chamber, hammer down). The design was for the military, so "needed in a hurry" is relative.
USED to?!
My TLE/RL II is a high speed/low drag setup, and thus its safety is pinned. But it is NOT my primary sidearm, nor is it my HD 1911! I wouldn't want to go into court for a righteous shoot, MINUS any safety devices, in this present Age of Litigation.
But for a plinker/shooter? Go nuts.
If you have hammer follow when loading and require either a 'bullseye' reload or holding the gun in some strange way to prevent it, you have a gun that is unsuitable for self-defense. Period, end of story.
I am unqualified to comment on actual bullseye competition-only guns, but I don't think I would want any gun that had hammer follow because of trigger bounce. I would get a lighter trigger, strengthen the trigger return leg, or have the trigger reworked to prevent it.
Thinking that a bullseye reload is a good idea in self defense is crazy, and would get you DQ'ed in almost any match I have been at. It is very dangerous to depress the trigger while reloading under stress, as the risk for an AD is very high.
I am unqualified to comment on actual bullseye competition-only guns, but I don't think I would want any gun that had hammer follow because of trigger bounce. I would get a lighter trigger, strengthen the trigger return leg, or have the trigger reworked to prevent it.
Thinking that a bullseye reload is a good idea in self defense is crazy, and would get you DQ'ed in almost any match I have been at. It is very dangerous to depress the trigger while reloading under stress, as the risk for an AD is very high.
Pinning of a grip safety is done quite commonly in USPSA. USPSA consideres the thumb safety to be the primary safety on a 1911 style gun, so pinning the grip safety is not against the rules.
As to WHY someone would do it, sometimes you may not get proper deactivation of the grip safety in instances where you're doing strong-hand only/weak-hand only strings of fire. It's not really needed, so why not disable it?
For me, on both of my Open guns, I have a hole drilled in the mainspring housing of the polymer grip, and a roll-pin inserted that forces the grip safety down. If I ever want to restore it, all I have to do is remove the roll-pin.
As to WHY someone would do it, sometimes you may not get proper deactivation of the grip safety in instances where you're doing strong-hand only/weak-hand only strings of fire. It's not really needed, so why not disable it?
For me, on both of my Open guns, I have a hole drilled in the mainspring housing of the polymer grip, and a roll-pin inserted that forces the grip safety down. If I ever want to restore it, all I have to do is remove the roll-pin.
I've owned and carried one or more Government Model pistols since 1966. When I was younger, I had some minimal problems with the grip safety activating. I have found several ways to block or deactivate the grip safety during the years.
In my mind, the best way is to field strip the pistol, then remove the mainspring housing pin, then partially remove the housing itself. Carefully insert a bit of debris of the correct size - small bit of brass stock works well - between the 'lip' of the grip safety and the 'lip' of the mainspring housing; carefully positioning the mainspring housing and pin. If done correctly, the grip safety is fully depressed and don't move. (Removing the debris and the grip safety works again. Nothing cut, ground, welded, soldered or scratched.)
With all that, I don't see the need for a grip safety on the Government Model. In my thinking, it is, like the magazine safety, an 'idiot device' and offends me from a philosophical standpoint.
As K1500 said, any Government Model that fires when chambering a round is defective. The trigger pull has been reduced too much while not ensuring the sear is fully seated in the hammer full cock notch. That specific example needs work.
Someone mentioned IDPA rules prohibiting deactivating a grip safety on a Government Model. PLEASE, do not confuse any game rules with reality. There are any number of 'games' who do not trust their members with firearms - sometimes with a degree of rationality. But DO NOT make the mistake of conflating a determined artificiality with reality.
What John Browning did and didn't design. Grip safeties, manual (thumb) safeties, firing pin safeties, and so on.
The Colt Government Model was designed between - depending on the details of what gets counted - between 1903 (thumb safety) and 1911 (date of acceptance). Browning's first design was produced by FN of Herstal, Belgium. That was the Model 1899 pistol in 7.65mm. It was updated and reintroduced the very next year as the Model 1900 in the sturdy .32 ACP caliber - which was designed by Browning as well. (And yes, I am aware of the calibers, I was being silly.)
What a modern shooter needs to realize is most everyone, both in the U. S. and Europe, were much more familiar with revolvers. With a revolver, one loads the arm and carries it hammer down until need. Then one cocks the arm to fire or simply pulls the trigger hard as applicable.
So, the reader will notice Browning's early designs with a concealed hammer had manual safeties - but not always grip safeties, while the exposed hammer types lacked a manual safety and mostly lacked a grip safety.
The exposed hammer guns were cocked for use and then the hammer lowered for holstering and carry. Just like a revolver, no?
The U. S. Army wanted a new pistol. The primary user of the pistol - at the time - was the U. S. Army Cavalry. They rode real, four-legged horses. So the design of the pistol was predicated on making the pistol safe without firing off as many as eight rounds into the ground or sky. (With a revolver, one would need fire no more than one round into the ground to - more or less - 'de-cock' the revolver. The horse needed to be controlled with at least one hand and complicated the procedure without lighting off a round.)
Do I feel safe with a non-grip safety pistol; even with a round in the chamber? Yes, I do.
A Government Model is in fact dangerous. However, it - assuming proper adjustments and handling - a Government Model is NOT hazardous. They do not fire indiscriminately and capriciously at their own whim. (Read the 'proper adjustments' clause from the sentence prior.) A Government Model can be treacherous, if improperly adjusted (read the incident about Lieutenant George Patton and his dislike of the M1911 pistol) or handled.
In my life, I've had three negligent or 'accidental' shots. None of them resulted in any harm to another, happily; the only damage was to my self-esteem - even my underwear survived! All three discharges were due to my mis-handling of the arm. None were due to a pinned grip safety, none were due to mechanical failure.
'The attorney will pounce on it.' Yes, they surely will; more likely in the civil 'wrongful death' litigation.
In a criminal trial - if it gets that far - a good shoot is a good shoot. The finish, caliber, trigger pull, type of grips, type of sights and brand of ammunition simply will not matter.
Yes, there are most likely some politically motivated prosecuting attorneys in some places who will attempt to try a defender merely because the defender wasn't killed. But a decent shoot will not result in a conviction.
The following 'wrongful death' suit is far more dangerous. The plaintiff - the survivors of the late attacker - will try every sleazy stunt to sway the rather ignorant of reality (their attorney will work very hard to impanel a jury sympathetic to the plaintiff) of the hideous tragedy which is all the fault of the respondent.
One will be sued for being alive and the attacker being dead or wounded. A pinned grip safety is the least of one's concerns.
Okay, I've turned this into a small book.
I see no value in a grip or magazine safety.
YOU should not do what you overwhelmingly feel is dangerous.
You are all big kids, make up your own minds (unless you carry an issue gun, of course.)
You are all big kids; someone else who differs in opinion does not lessen you as a human being. Of course, if that 'other' is a politician, they'll try to lessen you.
In my mind, the best way is to field strip the pistol, then remove the mainspring housing pin, then partially remove the housing itself. Carefully insert a bit of debris of the correct size - small bit of brass stock works well - between the 'lip' of the grip safety and the 'lip' of the mainspring housing; carefully positioning the mainspring housing and pin. If done correctly, the grip safety is fully depressed and don't move. (Removing the debris and the grip safety works again. Nothing cut, ground, welded, soldered or scratched.)
With all that, I don't see the need for a grip safety on the Government Model. In my thinking, it is, like the magazine safety, an 'idiot device' and offends me from a philosophical standpoint.
As K1500 said, any Government Model that fires when chambering a round is defective. The trigger pull has been reduced too much while not ensuring the sear is fully seated in the hammer full cock notch. That specific example needs work.
Someone mentioned IDPA rules prohibiting deactivating a grip safety on a Government Model. PLEASE, do not confuse any game rules with reality. There are any number of 'games' who do not trust their members with firearms - sometimes with a degree of rationality. But DO NOT make the mistake of conflating a determined artificiality with reality.
What John Browning did and didn't design. Grip safeties, manual (thumb) safeties, firing pin safeties, and so on.
The Colt Government Model was designed between - depending on the details of what gets counted - between 1903 (thumb safety) and 1911 (date of acceptance). Browning's first design was produced by FN of Herstal, Belgium. That was the Model 1899 pistol in 7.65mm. It was updated and reintroduced the very next year as the Model 1900 in the sturdy .32 ACP caliber - which was designed by Browning as well. (And yes, I am aware of the calibers, I was being silly.)
What a modern shooter needs to realize is most everyone, both in the U. S. and Europe, were much more familiar with revolvers. With a revolver, one loads the arm and carries it hammer down until need. Then one cocks the arm to fire or simply pulls the trigger hard as applicable.
So, the reader will notice Browning's early designs with a concealed hammer had manual safeties - but not always grip safeties, while the exposed hammer types lacked a manual safety and mostly lacked a grip safety.
The exposed hammer guns were cocked for use and then the hammer lowered for holstering and carry. Just like a revolver, no?
The U. S. Army wanted a new pistol. The primary user of the pistol - at the time - was the U. S. Army Cavalry. They rode real, four-legged horses. So the design of the pistol was predicated on making the pistol safe without firing off as many as eight rounds into the ground or sky. (With a revolver, one would need fire no more than one round into the ground to - more or less - 'de-cock' the revolver. The horse needed to be controlled with at least one hand and complicated the procedure without lighting off a round.)
Do I feel safe with a non-grip safety pistol; even with a round in the chamber? Yes, I do.
A Government Model is in fact dangerous. However, it - assuming proper adjustments and handling - a Government Model is NOT hazardous. They do not fire indiscriminately and capriciously at their own whim. (Read the 'proper adjustments' clause from the sentence prior.) A Government Model can be treacherous, if improperly adjusted (read the incident about Lieutenant George Patton and his dislike of the M1911 pistol) or handled.
In my life, I've had three negligent or 'accidental' shots. None of them resulted in any harm to another, happily; the only damage was to my self-esteem - even my underwear survived! All three discharges were due to my mis-handling of the arm. None were due to a pinned grip safety, none were due to mechanical failure.
'The attorney will pounce on it.' Yes, they surely will; more likely in the civil 'wrongful death' litigation.
In a criminal trial - if it gets that far - a good shoot is a good shoot. The finish, caliber, trigger pull, type of grips, type of sights and brand of ammunition simply will not matter.
Yes, there are most likely some politically motivated prosecuting attorneys in some places who will attempt to try a defender merely because the defender wasn't killed. But a decent shoot will not result in a conviction.
The following 'wrongful death' suit is far more dangerous. The plaintiff - the survivors of the late attacker - will try every sleazy stunt to sway the rather ignorant of reality (their attorney will work very hard to impanel a jury sympathetic to the plaintiff) of the hideous tragedy which is all the fault of the respondent.
One will be sued for being alive and the attacker being dead or wounded. A pinned grip safety is the least of one's concerns.
Okay, I've turned this into a small book.
I see no value in a grip or magazine safety.
YOU should not do what you overwhelmingly feel is dangerous.
You are all big kids, make up your own minds (unless you carry an issue gun, of course.)
You are all big kids; someone else who differs in opinion does not lessen you as a human being. Of course, if that 'other' is a politician, they'll try to lessen you.
Back in the day...it wasn't at all uncommon.
"...Some, understanding that your primary safety rests between your ears, have taped this useless grip “safety” closed. This is now forbidden..."
Got questioned/my ass reamed more than once for it. Had to peel the duct tape off...until it went back on. Some rear echelon Pogues decided it wasn't "safe'' to carry this way. Said Pogues easily ID'd by carrying in condition 4. A quick glance at the empty mag well as you were getting chewed on was all you needed to know if the chewer was a Pogue or not. Not my pistol in the pic, but the same idea. Was a lot more common than some may think.
J A Drury
Maj, USMC (Ret)
"...Some, understanding that your primary safety rests between your ears, have taped this useless grip “safety” closed. This is now forbidden..."
Got questioned/my ass reamed more than once for it. Had to peel the duct tape off...until it went back on. Some rear echelon Pogues decided it wasn't "safe'' to carry this way. Said Pogues easily ID'd by carrying in condition 4. A quick glance at the empty mag well as you were getting chewed on was all you needed to know if the chewer was a Pogue or not. Not my pistol in the pic, but the same idea. Was a lot more common than some may think.
J A Drury
Maj, USMC (Ret)
Attachments
I'm a little late to this discussion, but as I am one of a minority who actually pins out the grip safety on my 1911's, I'll post...
I had trouble years ago at a match when my 1911 didn't go off after I set up my shot. At the time I couldn't figure it out ... turned out I hadn't depressed the grip safety. I decided for myself the grip safety was actually more of a liability than a safety. I figured out how to put a pin in the mainspring housing and have done that to three of my favorite 1911 pistols. I'm more than happy with the thumb safety as the primary lockout.
It's ironic than Fairbairn and Sykes, Shanghai Police firearms trainers liked the grip safety and pinned the thumb safety. Like grips and sights, IMO it boils down to a personal preference and shouldn't be applied to a pistol unless you are comfortable with the modification.
In a age of Glock, S&W and dozens of other "modern" oem and custom pistols without grip or thumb safeties, condemning pinning the grip safety on the century old 1911 seems over wrought. In that vein any modification (grips, sights, finish) to a self defense handgun should be rejected.
With respect to the use of any pistol for the self defense shooting 99.999% of all handgun owners will never experience - if the act of self defense is justified the tool used (could be a shovel, ball bat or knife) will not be an issue unless your actions are not justified ...
I had trouble years ago at a match when my 1911 didn't go off after I set up my shot. At the time I couldn't figure it out ... turned out I hadn't depressed the grip safety. I decided for myself the grip safety was actually more of a liability than a safety. I figured out how to put a pin in the mainspring housing and have done that to three of my favorite 1911 pistols. I'm more than happy with the thumb safety as the primary lockout.
It's ironic than Fairbairn and Sykes, Shanghai Police firearms trainers liked the grip safety and pinned the thumb safety. Like grips and sights, IMO it boils down to a personal preference and shouldn't be applied to a pistol unless you are comfortable with the modification.
In a age of Glock, S&W and dozens of other "modern" oem and custom pistols without grip or thumb safeties, condemning pinning the grip safety on the century old 1911 seems over wrought. In that vein any modification (grips, sights, finish) to a self defense handgun should be rejected.
With respect to the use of any pistol for the self defense shooting 99.999% of all handgun owners will never experience - if the act of self defense is justified the tool used (could be a shovel, ball bat or knife) will not be an issue unless your actions are not justified ...
If you're riding the thumb safety and you get a failure of the grip safety to disengage, your grip safety isn't tuned properly. I have a perfectly working grip safety and ride the thumb safety exclusively. Not one instance of the grip safety engaging in 30 years and thousands of rounds.
If the idea of a pinned grip safety on a 1911 seems scary, don't even think about a Glock. A 1911 with a pinned grip safety is no different, operationally, than a P-35 and no one gets their shorts in a bunch over the P-35.
Hands differ. I recall that Cooper observed that about 20% of his students could not reliably depress the grip safety with a proper high thumb grip.
Various "speed bumps" and the like have probably lessened the problem. Robar still offers pinning the grip safety ($35).
Pinning is still a viable option for those who need it,
Rosco
Hands differ. I recall that Cooper observed that about 20% of his students could not reliably depress the grip safety with a proper high thumb grip.
Various "speed bumps" and the like have probably lessened the problem. Robar still offers pinning the grip safety ($35).
Pinning is still a viable option for those who need it,
Rosco
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
