Why the lack of pistols with a grip safety

Maybe the grip safety should be called the holster safety, shelf safety, or safe safety, since the only time it's active is when the gun is stored?
How much value is there in a safety that prevents the trigger from being pulled when nobody is holding the gun?
 
How much value is there in a safety that prevents the trigger from being pulled when nobody is holding the gun?
Click to expand...

I would submit that this is EXACTLY when a safety is needed. I don't want or need a safety when the gun is in my hands. At that point, I am controlling the weapon. The safety is needed when it is not under my direct control.
 
"Maybe the grip safety should be called the holster safety, shelf safety, or safe safety, since the only time it's active is when the gun is stored?"

My grip safety is engaged all the time I'm handling it, except when I'm on-target, or coming-onto-target. It's especially valued when I'm home, in the middle of town, chambering the first round after cleaning or dry-firing my gun. Also valuable when manually ejecting the chambered round, and when drawing or re-holstering the gun. It even gives me extra peace of mind when my gun is being carried holstered ... if my thumb safety DID somehow ever get inadvertently switched off, the grip safety gives me a backup safety. I LIKE the fact that a LOT of different (independent) things would need to accidentally happen, in order for me to get an unintentional discharge. All that redundancy makes a very light, short travel trigger reasonable for me.
 
I'm wondering why manufacturers haven't offered this as an option.
Click to expand...

I think it is a desirable and effective feature in impeding the gun from firing when that is not the users intention. However not everyone thinks the same way as this thread shows. Fortunately there are choices available for both camps.
 
They are not popular because they serve little function in a modern pistol...or any pistol for that matter IMO.

The most functional safeties are firing pin blocks activated by the trigger and, if it applies, a manual safety.

If they were functional or needed, you would see them on Glocks, S&W, Beretta's, Sigs, HK's......what's left that anyone/agencies/armed forces really buy??

It's on the 1911 which is an old design. And Springfield XD's....new design.

Many people feel comfortable or insist on a grip safety on a 1911, but wouldn't think of owning a series 80 style 1911. Safety-wise....I don't understand that thinking.
 
"The 1911 employs a trigger bar attached to a trigger shoe, that only looks like it slides."

The 1911 trigger doesn't slide? We do learn something new every day!

Jim
 
Even if the inertia of the trigger on 1911's could somehow cause the gun to fire, it can't do this while the safety is on. So, you'd really have to be waiving that gun around like a baseball-on-a-rope to theoretically make that happen!
Click to expand...

Never say never; eg -- http://www.simplyphysics.com/flying_objects/GuninMagnet.html.

In the above example, a police officer brought his cocked and locked Colt 1911 into an MRI room (the MRI tech neglected to tell him not to do so, and cops are reluctant to surrender their firearms, even when at the hospital for a diagnostic test). The powerful magnet in the MRI ripped the gun from the officer and discharged upon striking the machine. The magnet deactivated the grip safety and firing pin block, and the impulse of stricking the machine caused the firing pin to strike the primer causing a discharge despite the thumb safety lock being on.

These days, when getting an MRI scan, you are led to a dressing room with a locker in which you place all your belongings and apparel when changing into an exam gown. You lock the locker and take the key to the foyer of the MRI room. The tech takes the key and hangs it within his sight before you enter the MRI room and its high magnetic field.
 
It's possible that there are more 1911s out there that are "owned". I've often considered Glock to be a "gateway gun".

I would wager that there are many people who make the Glock their first firearm purchase for a number of reasons. They get recommended often because they are relatively low maintenance for first time shooters or people who are buying only one firearm for defense. These people can't be bothered to properly maintain a firearm such as the 1911, and sometimes not even their Glock.

Also people may be interested in Glock for the first firearm because they know law enforcement also carries Glock and they figure if it's good enough for LEOs it's good enough for them.

Now with 1911 owners you can expect that more than likely they already have prior experience with firearms and have a better understanding and practice of safe handling of firearms. I'm not implying that the 1911 is NOT safer, just that the likely owners of 1911s are statistically more likely to handle them in a safe manor.

Also 1911 owners are notorious for owning multiple 1911s. Yes, there are Glock owners who have multiple Glocks (myself included), but I know that the eventual outcome of my firearm collecting is that I will own multiple 1911s.

There are exceptions to all of this I'm sure, but I believe these AD/ND situations come from lack of experience and/or general negligence that would be avoided if one practiced safe handling of firearms.
Click to expand...

Rationalization to promote less safe handgun design?
 
How much value is there in a safety that prevents the trigger from being pulled when nobody is holding the gun?
Click to expand...

Ask the lady in VA who's purse-carried Glock NDed a couple of weeks ago. Or the guy who's holster-carried Glock NDed as he was fastening his seat belt.
 
I don't want or need a safety when the gun is in my hands. At that point, I am controlling the weapon. The safety is needed when it is not under my direct control.
Click to expand...

Flash back to 1908. You are a cavalry officer evaluating the Colt M1907. You have deployed the pistol while on the back of your trusty steed while charging an "enemy" target. The gun is clearly in your hands, but is it truly under control? Remember, the only external safety is the grip safety at the time, which is supposedly depressed and thus deactivated while in your hand. The Army rightfully concluded that the gun in such a situation was not under safe control, that it required a thumb-activated safety to ensure that it could be put under safe control in that situation.

Fast forward to today. Do people carry pistols in moving vehicles? Yes. Can you envision a scenario where it would be proper to deploy your pistol in a moving vehicle? Unless you are imagination-challenged, yes. Do today's roads have bumps? Unless you live in a social utopia, yes. Is a deployed pistol in a moving vehicle on a bumpy road under complete safe control. Heck no. The safe thing to do with a safetiless pistol under such a scenario would be to place trust in its internal passive drop safeties and through it out the window. With a 1911, however, you can activate the thumb safety lock and responsibly retain your firearm.
 
Last edited:
I have to back up for a bit on how the grip safety got there: The Army asked for an "automatic safety" in 1907. Until then the only drop safety on the gun was a shortened firing pin and an extra strength firing pin spring. The Army wanted more.

In 1907 the Army asked Colt to submit another version of their 45 acp pistol for trials. They asked that Colt provide it with a number of new or improved features among them near vertical ejection, a loaded chamber indicator, and an "automatic safety". The latter was a safety that prevented against the gun being discharged in the case it was dropped. (Bady pg.s 163-64 and Ehbets patent number 917,723 of 1907, pg. 1 and approved in 1909).

This was the first grip safety. It blocked the sear from engaging and raised the firing pin out of the way until gripped. However it was a dismal failure in trials with soldiers. If gripped too hard it could go full auto, if dropped it could go full auto.

So it was redone and patented in 1909. Came to be what was on it in 1911 after a few additions.

tipoc
 
Last edited:
Continuing from above. Ehbets grip safety did not work out. Browning took a hand in it then and redesigned the safety so that it only blocked the hammer sear. This made it impossible for the hammer to drop unless the gun was gripped, the safety depressed and the trigger pulled. If dropped the gun would not go off.

Typical of Browning though he designed it so that it could do something else as well. They had already placed a half cock "safety notch", Browning called it on the hammer. This notch was there as an aid in decocking the gun. That is in safely lowering the hammer down on either a live round in the chamber or an empty chamber.

Now in trials the Army had pointed out a problem. With their revolvers it only took one hand to lower the hammer and thus make the gun safe. But with the semi autos it took two hands to lower the hammer and thus make the gun safe. One hand to hold the gun, grip the safety and pull the trigger and the other to lower the hammer safely.

So Browning extended the tang on the rear of the grip safety so that when you brought the hammer all the way back it engaged (or disengaged) the grip safety and allowed for one handed lowering of the hammer.

The first semi auto to have a grip safety was the Swiss contract Luger which appeared in 1900. In 1903 Colt placed one on Browning's designed M1903 in 32 acp and in 1908 on the same gun in .380

But the first one to act like the one on the 1911 was on the version of 1909-1910. On a properly made 1911 it still does the two things Browning designed it to do.

The Argentine Ballester-Molina pistol did away with the grip safety, and a few other things from the 1911. It was less expensive to make.

Other variations have also eliminated the grip safety. The Detonics Combat Master for example.

The grip safety was the answer to a particular problem that came up in field trials with troops with the pistol. The 1911 was put together piece by piece as problems were posed.

tipoc
 
The grip safety was the answer to a particular problem that came up in field trials with troops with the pistol. The 1911 was put together piece by piece as problems were posed.
Click to expand...

The M1911 certainly had the benefit of a long development time with abundant feedback from the US Army.

If the M1907 had been fitted with a thumb safety lock rather than a grip safety, do you think the grip safety would have been added later? I suspect not. As you point out, it is possible to make a 1911-ish pistol without a grip safety, but I don't know of anything similar without a thumb safety.

Did I read earlier here that the grip safety on a Colt Series 80 1911 lifts the firing pin block when disengaged (gripped)? I can see that as a plus, because it would free the trigger from having to deactivate the firing pin block, which degrades the trigger pull.
 
I just got in the habit of not using grip safeties. My Ortigies have them and I never use them. Part of why I like my Star is because it does not have one. I see them as being solution to a nonproblem.
 
I just got in the habit of not using grip safeties. My Ortigies have them and I never use them.
Click to expand...

How do you "not use" a grip safety. A grip safety is a passive system that requires no thought from the user. If you are gripping the handgun, the grip safety is disengaged.
 
"Did I read earlier here that the grip safety on a Colt Series 80 1911 lifts the firing pin block when disengaged (gripped)? I can see that as a plus, because it would free the trigger from having to deactivate the firing pin block, which degrades the trigger pull."

I don't think the Series 80 does that now ... I'm fairly sure that the grip safety blocks only the trigger on a Series 80. And the firing-pin-block is disengaged by the initial movement of the trigger on a Series 80. The Kimber series II (a derivative of the Swarz) disengages the firing-pin-block with the initial travel of the grip lever ... I much prefer that mode of operation, but I think Kimber is the only 1911 maker who uses it.
 
I'm wondering why manufacturers haven't offered this as an option.
Click to expand...

Because it costs money. Would you pay more for a gun without a grip safety? Because, if you want the option, that's essentially what you have to do.

The 1911 employs a trigger bar attached to a trigger shoe, that only looks like it slides.
Click to expand...

It only looks like it slides, because it does slide! The trigger and its attached stirrup slide back and forth. They do nothing else. If the gun has a pivoting trigger, it is not faithful to the original design.
 
The grip safety may have some utility in an area that I have not heard mentioned. I was just wondering if someone else might think that they could be a little added safety around very small children. I know you should never leave a pistol in a place where a small child could get it's hands on it, but should that instance ever arise, I think a grip safety might keep a disaster from happening. I know when I first got my Springfield HD in .45 I was letting my daughter fire it. Several times she would try to pull the trigger and couldn't get it to fire. After several times this happened I realized she wasn't gripping the pistol in a way that would defeat the grip safety. My daughter does not have small hands for a woman being average size, but it took some effort on her part to hold the pistol so the grip safety would allow it to be fired.

Now, knowing this I wondered if this might be a safety that would prove to be effective with small children. I know there would be some conditions where a child might push on the grip safety with one hand and pull the trigger with the other , but I still think the grip safety would add a little more protection against a small child operating the pistol. I remember recently a mother being killed by her two year old daughter and I wondered if a grip safety might have prevented this. What are your feelings on this ?

Another question I have is this. I googled Springfield HD and was reading a history on this pistol. I saw a picture on the gun before it was adopted by Springfield and it looked like it had a grip safety. Does anyone know why they felt it was needed in Croatia ? Also, Springfield Armory must have thought it an enhancement and would not turn out to be a distraction, or they would have probably told them to leave it off before they put their name on it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top