[W Turner]

I have a Springfield Lightweight Loaded Bi-Tone that somes equipped with an ambi-safety. I kind of like the ambi feature, but buying grips is made more diffficult by the presence of the safety. The main issue is the dogleg (for lack of a better term) that comes out from the bottom of the safety at about a 45 degree angle. I have detail stripped the pistol and cannot find any purpose for this piece to be there and it is the main obstacle in finding grips for this gun.

Woud removing this extension cause a problem? If it's not ok, what purpose does it serve?

Thanks everybody,
W

[LHB1]

WT,
I don't own a Springfield but on some 1911's such a dogleg is actually used to retain the right side of safety in place. In any event, it is NOT difficult to relieve the back side of grips slightly for ambi safety if they do not come with such relief cut. I would NOT remove that metal portion of the safety.

Good shooting and be safe.
LB

[AirForceShooter]

If you're not a lefty why not just take out the ambi and put in a standard safety?
I'm a lefty and I don't use and ambi.
But then I don'y use a safety at all.
Condition 0, just like a glock.

AFS

[Phoenix_III]

If you're not a lefty why not just take out the ambi and put in a standard safety?
I'm a lefty and I don't use and ambi.
But then I don'y use a safety at all.
Condition 0, just like a glock.

AFS

Having the hammer at full-cock (1911) and no safety is very different than the glocks partially loaded, non-exposed hammer.

:scrutiny:

[Kruzr]

Woud removing this extension cause a problem? If it's not ok, what purpose does it serve?

Yes, it would cause the safety to fall out.
As mentioned, it holds the safety in place.

You can get a King's or Kimber ambi safety that does not have that extension. These rely on an extended hammer pin to keep the safety in place.

[Jim K]

"Yes, it would cause the safety to fall out.
As mentioned, it holds the safety in place."

Well, no. In the normal setup, the right hand thumbpiece is held in by the grips, but the left side is retained in the normal way by the cutouts in the frame, along with the safety lock plunger. The true safety (left side) is not dependent on the right side thumbpiece for retention.

There is no reason the ambi safety can't be removed altogether and replaced with a normal left side only safety.

But just removing the right side thumbpiece can cause problems. The safety shaft end is not rounded, as it has to be cut for the right side thumbpiece, and the removal of the latter leaves a poor appearance. Worse, some ambi safety shafts are split in the middle, and removing the right hand end will leave the shaft unsupported on the right side, with possible problems for the grip safety.

Jim

[Kruzr]

Jim, I meant the right side safety, as opposed to the safeties. :)

[Jim K]

What I was trying to point out is that there is no safety on the right side, only a thumbpiece that does nothing but move the real safety on the left side. But yes, removing the grip will cause that thumbpiece to fall out. It won't affect the left side except as I mentioned. ;)

Jim

[ryoushi]

If you're not a lefty why not just take out the ambi and put in a standard safety?
I'm a lefty and I don't use and ambi.
But then I don'y use a safety at all.
Condition 0, just like a glock.
AFS

Natural selection at work here.

[BluesBear]

:banghead:

In fact, the Cooper Conditions do not apply to Glocks. They were designed to explain options for 1911 pattern pistols.

Condition Zero means that the gun is at full cock with no manual safety activated.

Since the Glock is never at full cock unless the trigger is pulled you ae NOT carrying a Glock in Condition One.

If you carry a 1911 pattern pistol cocked and unlocked you're just a Negligent Discharge waiting to occur.

[BluesBear]

That's the reason I only use the Genuine Colt (Muescke) ambi safety. They don't rely on the grips to hold the safety in place.

[W Turner]

Couple of things come to mind here....

1- I am not talking about taking the entire right 1/2 of the safety off, just the dogleg that goes under the grips.


2-If I understand correctly, the dogleg is there so that the right hand grip puts pressure on it and keeps the entire right side of the safety from working it's way out under recoil? If this is the case I will likely get either a standard or ambi-safety to replace it. May just replace the sear, disconnector, and hammer at the same time.


W

[Jim Watson]

W.

No 2 is correct. The "dogleg" on the right side lever running under the grip panel is the only thing holding the lever on the gun (exept for friction.)

What grip do you want that does not clear? Or could not have a clearance cut made?

Mind you, I think ambis are kind of fragile and only have one set on a competition pistol. They are the King's which are retained by a head on the hammer pin. Gary H. is lefthanded and uses one regularly and he had worn out two "dogleg" types before I told him about the King's.

[BluesBear]

You will find that, by far, most of the ambidextrous safeties for 1911 pattern pistols use the "dog leg" to hold the right side paddle in place.

I see no real advantage in one system over the other.
My personal choice to use only the Colt type, that is held in place by an extended sear pin, is simply because I don't feel I should have to remove the grips in order to remove the thumb safety.

[Jim Watson]

I agree, but think the King's which are retained by a head on the hammer pin are stouter than the Mooshy-Colt which are held by a lip on the sear pin.

[4v50 Gary]

That's the reason I only use the Genuine Colt (Muescke) ambi safety. They don't rely on the grips to hold the safety in place.

Yep. Me too.

[W Turner]

Thanks for all of the replies. I will probably switch to a single-sided safety since I am right handed anyway. Just gotta find one I like....


Jim- I will probably have the safety switched out when/if I have the guts replaced. Hopefully I can get the same FLG you use to do the work if he's still working by then.

W