Why the lack of pistols with a grip safety

[tipoc]

The basic purpose of the grip safety was that it did one thing simply which was block the sear until it was depressed. (I mentioned that Browning extended the tang of the safety so that it would allow for one handed decocking, this was before the thumb safety was added.) It was a simple design, and still is.

The military never thought it needed the Swartz safety (the type used by Kimber) which was developed in the 1930s. They did not add it to the guns they used during the entire time they used the 1911. Though in the last decade or so both some Marine special forces units have used both Kimbers, with the Swartz and Colts with the Series 80 firing pin safety in them.

Someone mentioned earlier that during WWII the Navy had accidents with guns dropped on the steel decks of ships. This is true but the incidents were with S&W revolvers. The Navy compelled S&W to install a hammer block type safety in their revolvers whch made them drop safe. It never asked Colt to do the same in the 1911. The safety in the 1911 made the gun drop safe as far as the Navy was concerned. The Marines and the Army felt the same.

A bit more on the Series 80 system;

The single biggest change to the 1911 design came about in 1983, when Colt introduced the "MK IV Series 80" pistols. These guns incorporated a new firing pin block safety system, where a series of internal levers and a plunger positively blocked the firing pin from moving until the trigger was pressed, thus eliminating the possibility of the gun discharging if dropped onto a hard surface or struck hard. In this instance however, ALL of Colt's 1911-pattern pistols incorporated the new design change so even the Commander and Officer's ACP pistols became known as Series 80 guns...

There was one other design change made to the Series 80 guns as well, and that was a re-designed half-cock notch. On all models the notch was changed to a flat shelf instead of a hook, and it is located where half-cock is engaged just as the hammer begins to be pulled back. This way the half-cock notch will still perform its job of arresting the hammer fall should your thumb slip while manually cocking the pistol, yet there is no longer a hook to possibly break and allow the hammer to fall anyway. With the notch now located near the at-rest position, you can pull the trigger on a Series 80 while at half-cock and the hammer WILL fall. However, since it was already near the at-rest position the hammer movement isn't sufficient to impact the firing pin with any amount of force.

http://forums.1911forum.com/showthread.php?t=15201

Throughout the life of the 1911 the grip safeties have been pinned or deactivated by some individuals who had issues with it due to the shape of their hands or how they gripped the guns. It's easy enough to do.

Others have had issue with the Series 80 safeties which work off the trigger. Which can also be deactivated or removed. Personally I think the Series 80 is the better of the two types and is more reliable than the Swartz type. Kimber has had problems with the latter.

tipoc

 

[Son of Liberty]

As with any external mechanical safety that I don't care for,I do not like those grip safeties.
To me there just another item that might fail,and keep the handgun from being able to fire when needed.
I have a few handguns that have these grip safeties,but I always wonder if they might have a failure.

Been using 1911s and now XDs for EDC for nearly 40 years...and I have never had a failure of the grip safety.

That said, I have seen failures of grip, but that is a function of the shooter, not the firearm.

 

[Mike_Fontenot]

"The basic purpose of the grip safety was that it did one thing simply which was block the sear until it was depressed."

The modern version of the grip safety blocks the trigger, not the sear. The thumb safety blocks the sear (and the hammer). Did the original grip safety (when there was no thumb safety yet) block only the sear, and then, when the thumb safety was added, did they change the grip safety to block only the trigger?

 

[tipoc]

The modern version of the grip safety blocks the trigger, not the sear. The thumb safety blocks the sear (and the hammer). Did the original grip safety (when there was no thumb safety yet) block only the sear, and then, when the thumb safety was added, did they change the grip safety to block only the trigger?

Yes, I was not clear, it blocked the trigger from engaging the three pronged sear spring by blocking the rear of the trigger stirrup's movement. This prevented the trigger from being pulled and engaging the sear which allowed the hammer to fall and strike the firing pin. Prevented it until the grip safety was depressed.

Kuhnhausen has a picture of this simple arrangement on page 33 of Volume 1 of his books. Next to it he pictures the Series 80 arrangement.

This "modern version" was adopted in 1910 and made it's way to the final version of the 1911. But I'll double check on the dates of that. At any rate by 1911 the gun had the "Modern Version" you describe in it.

tipoc

 

[FITASC]

There should not be a need for an additional safety. If the one between your ears is not working properly, perhaps handguns are not your strong suit and should be avoided until such time as your brain engages things in the proper perspective.......
just sayin'..................

 

[Dain Bramage]

I don't know which Model 1903 pistol has a "tiny" grip safety. The Model 1903 hammer pistol has no grip safety; the one on the Model 1903 hammerless is the full backstrap.

The hammerless safety is the length of backstrap, but only protrudes a small amount at the top of the backstrap and has a very small arc of movement. I find it difficult to operate.

 

[AKexpat]

@ Mike_Fontenot

The importance of a grip safety, and the importance of a thumb safety, also increases when the gun is carried cocked, and especially when it has a very light trigger with a very short travel (like my current 3 lb trigger, and I've previously had it as light as 2-1/4 lb, when my recoil spring was lighter). People who are comfortable carrying a gun with no safety (and one which is either fully cocked or partially cocked) very likely have a much heavier trigger than mine, and one with much longer trigger travel. Even then, I wouldn't want it pointed at me all day.

Please explain how a recoil spring has anything to do with trigger pull weight.

Change your wording to mainspring or hammerspring, and I'm all with you.

Jim

 

[Skans]

The powerful magnet in the MRI ripped the gun from the officer and discharged upon striking the machine.

Well, there's at least one instance documented where the grip safety was useless on impact.

 

[RickB]

previously had it as light as 2-1/4 lb, when my recoil spring was lighter). People who are comfortable carrying a gun with no safety (and one which is either fully cocked or partially cocked) very likely have a much heavier trigger than mine, and one with much longer trigger travel. Even then, I wouldn't want it pointed at me all day.

Please explain how a recoil spring has anything to do with trigger pull weight.

The harder the slide slams forward, the more danger there is of inertia firing. A light trigger pull will have a lightly loaded sear spring, and a combination of trigger weight and sear spring adjustment that's perfectly safe with a 14# recoil spring, can become dicey with, say a 20# spring.
I have a half-pound heavier trigger on my Delta Elite, to better resist inertia fire with 20#-24# recoil springs, than on my .45s with their 14# recoil springs.

 

[Mike_Fontenot]

"Please explain how a recoil spring has anything to do with trigger pull weight."

When I had to increase my recoil spring from the stock 18.5 lbs to 20 lbs (because of some noticeable battering from shooting all full-spec 10mm rounds), I started getting hammer-follow sometimes when I chambered the first round (and in the uncommon occasions when I didn't completely stay off the grip lever, like I usually do, during chambering). When I originally set my trigger-pull at about 2-1/2 lbs, I had tested it for hammer-follow, with the grip-lever compressed, and verified that it didn't. When I put in the stronger recoil spring, it resulted in the slide slamming home harder than before, with makes hammer-follow (via inertial trigger-pull) more likely. I had never realized this connection before (between recoil spring strength and inertial trigger-pull) ... for heavier trigger-pulls, it's not a concern (because there's more margin), but for very light trigger-pulls, it's something to be aware of. I also never realized that I was sometimes failing to completely stay off the grip-lever during chambering ... I'm more careful now (there is just a tiny amount of travel on my grip-lever required to disengage the trigger block).

[addentum]: I think both my sear spring (both the disconnector and sear legs) AND my recoil spring had weakened a bit since I had originally set that trigger-pull at 2-1/2 lbs. After the hammer-follow occurred, I measured the trigger-pull, and it had decreased to about 2-1/4 lbs. And after I replaced the (nominal) 18.5 lb recoil spring with a new 20 lb one, I was surprised that the effort required to rack the slide (with the hammer back) was a good bit greater than that mere 1.5 lb difference would cause. I had THOUGHT that the fact, that my 18.5 lb recoil spring hadn't continued to lose any rest-length after the initial 1/2" loss that I always get in the first range session, meant that it wasn't getting weaker. But that apparently isn't so ... it HAD gotten much weaker, even though its rest-length was stable. (That recoil spring probably had no more than a couple of hundred rounds on it, but full-spec 10mm really DOES eat recoil springs!)

 

[zukiphile]

A thumb safety lock will. A separate action to unlock the pistol prevents it from firing just because the trigger is pressed.

And yet many ND's occur with guns that have a safety

My point is anyone so careless that they can't keep from pulling the trigger by mistake is also likely to forget to engage a safety

The only real safety lies between the ears

It's true that someone exercising less than sufficient care could forget to engage a safety lock or could forget to keep his finger off the trigger. One would expect the incidence of both happening simultaneously to be lower than just one or the other.

 

[Limnophile]

The Kimber series II (a derivative of the Swarz) disengages the firing-pin-block with the initial travel of the grip lever ...

Because of this, does the Kimber Series II have a reputation for a better trigger than its competitors with firing-pin blocks that are not deactivated by the grip safety?

 

[Limnophile]

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.

It undoubtedly does.

As a youngster I once encountered a younger child brandishing a found 1911 that was cocked and locked. I do not know if he tried to pull the trigger or inadvertently bumped it, but the presence of both the grip and thumb safeties didn't hurt at the time, although I was ignorant of how the platform operated it. The kid gladly surrendered the gun to me and the incident ended safely, albeit with high anxiety on both our parts.

 

[Skans]

.... found 1911 that was cocked and locked. I do not know if he tried to pull the trigger or inadvertently bumped it, but the presence of both the grip and thumb safeties didn't hurt at the time....

Nor did the grip safety do anything to help. The gun's lock would have prevented it from being fired. The grip safety was irrelevant.

Yes, I know, I'm a "hater".....a grip safety "hater"!

 

[Mike_Fontenot]

"Because of this, does the Kimber Series II have a reputation for a better trigger than its competitors with firing-pin blocks that are not deactivated by the grip safety?"

It's true that the Series II firing-pin-block has no effect at all on trigger-pull. But the fact that the Series 80 firing-pin-block is deactivated by the initial travel of the trigger doesn't have a large effect on the feel of the trigger pull ... it occurs during the trigger travel that is resisted by the disconnector leg of the sear spring, and the extra resistance produced by the firing-pin disengagement is usually fairly small by comparison. Some people can feel it, but for most people I think it's not a problem, especially since most 1911 shooters want a trigger pull of at least 4 lbs. It does matter, though, if you want the lightest possible trigger-pull (like I do) ... to some extent, you can offset the effect of the firing-pin disengagement resistance by reducing the disconnector resistance, but you can only reduce the disconnector resistance so much: if the disconnector resistence is reduced too much, it could keep your trigger from resetting properly.

 

[Limnophile]

Well, there's at least one instance documented where the grip safety was useless on impact.

That MRI-induce AD was the result of a failure of more than just the grip safety -- the thumb safety, inertial firing pin, and firing-pin block were also simultaneously defeated. Actually, the thumb safety didn't fail, because it prevented the hammer from being released, but that was made irrelevant because the magnet disengaged the firing-pin block and the impact overcame the inertia in the firing-pin spring.

 

[RickB]

Because of this, does the Kimber Series II have a reputation for a better trigger than its competitors with firing-pin blocks that are not deactivated by the grip safety?

I think it's more like a belief, than anything else. Out-of-the-box guns with factory triggers can be good or bad, regardless of the presence or absence of a trigger-operated firing pin block.
Thirty years ago, when Series 80 was introduced, it was established that it was harder to achieve a really exceptional trigger on a Series 80 gun, and that somehow turned into "Series 80 guns have bad triggers".
I've tickled plenty of lousy triggers on guns without Series 80.
If the trigger is going to be "tuned" via polishing and fitting of all the parts, there's very little difference.
I did back-to-back testing on a couple of my S80 Colts, and left the S80 bits in one of them because I couldn't sense enough difference to justify taking it apart again to remove the bits. On another gun, I left them out for the same reason; couldn't tell the difference.

 

[tipoc]

Just a comment on this;

When I had to increase my recoil spring from the stock 18.5 lbs to 20 lbs (because of some noticeable battering from shooting all full-spec 10mm rounds), I started getting hammer-follow sometimes when I chambered the first round (and in the uncommon occasions when I didn't completely stay off the grip lever, like I usually do, during chambering). When I originally set my trigger-pull at about 2-1/2 lbs, I had tested it for hammer-follow, with the grip-lever compressed, and verified that it didn't. When I put in the stronger recoil spring, it resulted in the slide slamming home harder than before, with makes hammer-follow (via inertial trigger-pull) more likely. I had never realized this connection before (between recoil spring strength and inertial trigger-pull) ... for heavier trigger-pulls, it's not a concern (because there's more margin), but for very light trigger-pulls, it's something to be aware of. I also never realized that I was sometimes failing to completely stay off the grip-lever during chambering ... I'm more careful now (there is just a tiny amount of travel on my grip-lever required to disengage the trigger block).

The recoil spring strength has no direct connection to the hammer following the slide. The first thing to look at would be the adjusted trigger pull. A trigger weight of from 2 1/2 pds to 2 1/4 pds is pretty light and usually used for bullseye shooting light loads. If not done just right it will deteriorate (as you reported it did, it got lighter over time and not too long a time). If the face of the sear or of the hammer is overly altered, it won't hold it's cock, and can be shaken loose by the slide going into battery. The hammer will then follow the slide down but will be stopped from firing by the safety notch on the hammer.

This has nothing to do with the grip safety. The problem is not with the recoil spring. Sounds more like a bad trigger job done in an effort to get a too light of a trigger pull.

There is no reason to keep your hand off the grip safety when chambering a round. Whether it's the first round or the last. The gun is designed for the grip safety to be depressed when the slide slams home. It also doesn't matter whether you lower the slide by hand or let it slam down while loading the first round it's gotta be a juggling trick to keep the hand from depressing the safety.

Anyway my opinion.

tipoc

 

[tipoc]

Because of this, does the Kimber Series II have a reputation for a better trigger than its competitors with firing-pin blocks that are not deactivated by the grip safety?

I agree with Rick here. Kimber does not have a better reputation on trigger pulls due to the series 80 system. Very good trigger pulls can be had with the Series 80 system.

Regarding the controversy involving getting a decent trigger pull on a Series 80 gun, it is only of importance if the gunsmith attempts to create a super-light pull (under four pounds) for target or competition use. In defense/carry guns where a four-pound or heavier pull is necessary, the added friction of the Series 80 parts adds little or nothing to the pull weight or feel. A good gunsmith can do an excellent trigger job on a Series 80 and still leave all the safety parts in place, although he will probably charge a little more than if the gun were a Series 70 since there are more parts to work with. But any gunsmith who tells you that you can't get a good trigger on a Series 80 without removing the safety parts is likely either lazy or incompetent.

http://forums.1911forum.com/showthread.php?t=15201

tipoc