Does the 1911 really need a thumb safety?

[LkWinnipesaukee]

Well, when JMB originally invented his handgun, known as the 1910, it did not have a thumb safety, only the grip safety. The military then told him it was too dangerous to carry, and he then installed a thumb safety on his new 1911. Still, soldiers were told to carry their firearms with the hammer down on an empty chamber (the story goes something like that. )

So, do you think the 1911 needs a thumb safety? For those that carry the gun, what do you think? Anyone here carry condition 0 (condition 1, but thumb safety off)? Would your opinion of the gun change if it didn't have a thumb safety?

 

[blackcash88]

No, it doesn't. Follow the safety rules and it won't go bang until it's wanted to. MANY designs out there with no user manipulated safeties at all.

 

[SAWBONES]

This is an old issue that's been discussed and debated at least since the 1970s.

The thumb safety makes more sense and is more "affirmative".
The grip safety is redundant, and is significantly prone to failure-to-release.

 

[rcmodel]

Yes, it would change tremendously.

Without a thumb safety, a 1911 would just be another Glock.

I like the fact that I can carry cocked & locked and be safe if I stick it in my pants or hip-pocket.

I like the fact that it locks the slide shut and there is no chance of pushing it slightly out of battery when holstering it.

I like the fact that I can run a light crisp trigger with almost zero reset movement, and still be perfectly safe when the safety is engaged.

There are more reasons, but that's enough for me.

PS: The grip safety is less then no safety at all.
It doesn't lock down the action, it doesn't block the sear & hammer with a steel bar, and it doesn't do much at all really.

rcmodel

 

[Ironman]

Well said rcmodel

 

[mpmarty]

No Safeties

No safties are necessary, until you want to do more than keep it in the safe. I'd no more have a 1911 without the thumb safety than I would pocket carry a Glock. Gee whiz you say Glocks have not one, not two but three safeties. Yup and Yugo made a wonderful economical automobile too. Get your keys stuck in the trigger guard on a Glock sometime and chances are the gene pool just got shallower.

 

[gyp_c2]

ha...

...what grip safety?...

 

[D-Man]

I think that comparing a 1911 without safeties to a Glock is a bit misleading (and to keep things fair, both guns would not be modified except for the fact that both the grip and thumb safety on the 1911 are removed).

While you might say that a 1911 and a Glock could have 5 lb trigger pulls, the 1911 one should be much more crisp and need less travel than the Glock. Yes, I'll say it - the Glock trigger with longer pull is much safer than a non-safetied 1911.

But one you add in the thumb safety, the 1911 becomes a very safe platform. While I also like the grip safety, I could see that being removed without too many complaints from me.

 

[DougDubya]

The grip safety - Wayne Novak designed a backstrap that takes the place of the mainspring housing and the grip safety, making a very nice flatback 1911.

 

[Steve C]

JMB's 1st design 1900 Colt and its submission to the army had no safety other than the inertial firing pin, the thought being that if you wanted to fire it you'd cock it like any single action pistol and subsequent rounds would be semi auto. If you wanted it "safe" you'd decock it and leave it with the hammer down. The army requested both the grip safety and thumb safety as the trials progressed.

Those that state "cocked and locked" was the way "JMB designed the gun to be carried" are just ignorant of the pistols development.

The grip "safety" isn't much of a safety except it prevents the trigger from being pulled when it isn't engaged and has no attachment to the hammer and may allow the pistol to fire if dropped.

The only function of the half cock or "safety shelf" on later 1980 series pistol is to catch the hammer if it accidentally slips from the thumb during cocking and is not a safe position.

The thumb safety does lock the sear and hammer in position and will prevent discharge if the pistol is dropped.

If you carry the pistol in condition 1, loaded, cocked and locked, the the thumb safety is indispensable. The grip safety on the other hand is superfelous and unnecessary. One of the reasons you don't see them on many handguns including JMB's later design of the Hi-Power. There are several clones of the 1911a1 that do not have a grip safety, the Star series pistols for one.

Actually if you where to carry the pistol with empty chamber or one in the spout and hammer down you really don't need any of the "safeties", good thing since the thumb safety will not engage with the hammer down.

 

[USMCDK]

Well, when JMB originally invented his handgun, known as the 1910,

Okay I'm not a 1911 owner or user (YET) but I did a report on them Vs. the Berretta 9mm when I was in the USMC and JMB didn't make the 1911 in 1910 it's called a 1911 because that's the year it was made. I could be worng, but I doubt I am maybe both of us need to do our homework again. ZING!!! no offense Winnipesaukee. BTW are you from NH PM me!!! Please?

 

[USMCDK]

Get your keys stuck in the trigger guard on a Glock sometime and chances are the gene pool just got shallower.

Yet again NO OFFENSE, but why oh god why would you be stupid enough (generally speaking not pointed at you my friend) to put you keys in the same pocket as you firearm??? That's just asking for trouble not only with a neglagent discharge but you also give away the positions of your CCW and on top of that the key get in the darn way of you grabbing the weapon!

I think that's a +1 for me but I could be wrong...:banghead:

 

[RobertFBurnett]

A slippery slope we tread when we put Glocks in out pockets. I'll take it a step even further towards insanity (its the mood I'm in [...insomnia Sux! ], purely theoretical...)

Get your keys stuck in the trigger guard on a Glock sometime and chances are the gene pool just got shallower.

Then how ya gonna drive to the hospital if you just shot your keys!

Silly in the a.m.,

RFB

 

[HM2PAC]

USMCDK wrote:

JMB didn't make the 1911 in 1910 it's called a 1911 because that's the year it was made.

It was finally approved in 1911. He began working on it a few years earlier and went through 2, maybe 3 trial models before the end result was approved.

 

[USMCDK]

It was finally approved in 1911. He began working on it a few years earlier and went through 2, maybe 3 trial models before the end result was approved.

Oh I wouldn't doubt it but... I have never heard of or seen a model out there that was sold to the commercial or military populous that's was labeled and or name the 1910. just my observation, once again i could be wrong, if so please show me the pudding.

 

[1911Tuner]

Here we go again...

The thumb safety was requested specifically to enable a mounted soldier to place the pistol in a safe condition with one hand so that he could regain control of a frightened, unruly horse. It was also noticed that...if the same trooper attempted to reholster the piece during such an episode, that...under the circumstances...he might not remember to take his finger out of the trigger guard, or the pistol could be pushed out of battery if the slide was free to move. If the gun was also dirty at the time...it might not return to battery without the trooper using both hands.

The thumb safety was not...as many believe...adopted so that the pistol could be carried in Condition One. Neither did JMB or anyone else intend for the gun to be carried in C-1. The user was instead given a choice as to the modes of carry...1-2-3 or4...depending on how critical the situation was/ is.

Oh I wouldn't doubt it but... I have never heard of or seen a model out there that was sold to the commercial or military populous that's was labeled and or name the 1910.

And you never will. There were only 8 of them produced, and numbers 6, 7, and 8 were retrofitted with the prototype thumb safety for testing and evaluation. Of the original number....there may be only 2 or 3 that still exist without the safety...and they're socked away in a museum somewhere.

The grip safety is redundant, but it's not unnecessary...or it wasn't in 1912. Remember that this gun was designed primarily for the US Cavalry.

In the event of a dropped pistol...if dropped from shoulder height while the shooter is on horseback...the pistol will likely flip and land with the muzzle pointed up...possibly at the horse or its rider. Without a positive means to block the trigger, the trigger will move backward on impact and cause the sear to move. If the impact is sufficient to move the sear far enough to miss the half-cock notch...bang. Remember that the old guns had long, heavy steel triggers.

Pictured below is a photograph of a 1910 prototype, sans thumb safety. Courtesy of Charles W. Clawson.

 

[EOTechRulesAll]

When I have my 1911 I generally carry it loaded, chambered, hammer down. I don't like the thumb safety but I generally see trouble coming due to situational awareness and I would probably have time to work a simple hammer. But then again, this is one of the reasons I carry an M9 instead of a 1911.

 

[Walkalong]

I am a big fan of the thumb safety. I don't mind the grip safety, although it needs to be fit right of course.

The Novak "answer" is a noval concept and should be very comfortable and allow a high grip, along with a relieved spot under the trigger guard like the enhanced 80 Series guns.

Come to think of it. I like the grip safety too.

 

[Jim Watson]

And, as far as Mr Browning's designs and ideas, the Army requested a grip safety in 1907. Before that, the only Colt-Browning pistols with any sort of manual safties were the pocket hammerless guns. The hammer guns (apart from the 1900 .38 with its odd rear sight safety) depended on the exposed hammer and an operator who watched what he was doing.

They also requested the side button magazine catch in there somewhere. I suspect because they liked the one on the Lugers tested earlier. Interesting that the "American" magazine catch originated in Europe. Kind of like Berdan and Boxer primers.

They tested the 1910 and requested a thumb safety and some beefing up of the action so it would hold up better. The Army shot the 1911 prototypes in March of 1911, officially adopted it in November, and was taking delivery of guns in early 1912. Can you imagine a government agency and a manufacturer working that fast nowadays? Heck, you could not get a new GI toothbrush approved in eight months now.

 

[ccmdfd]

Thanks for the post 1911Tuner. Good to see some history as well as debunking all of the typical internet rumor stuff that floats around.

 

[Spartacus451]

I like the fact that I can run a light crisp trigger with almost zero reset movement, and still be perfectly safe when the safety is engaged.

This is what does it for me. The trigger's potential is what makes the 1911 great and that requires a manual safety IMO. I wouldn't say no to a series 80 1911 with a six pound trigger and no thumb/grip safety. I would take it over a Glock any day.

 

[AirForceShooter]

Condition ZERO and I've carrie dit that way for close to 40 years. Never went boom unless I told it to.

Just put an ambi on it so I could give it to my Granddaughter.

AFS

 

[hankdatank1362]

Every time I see a post from Tuner, I think of that old guy that Swagger went to go see in "Shooter." The guy that knew everything about everything.

Tuner's forgotten more than the vast majority of us will ever know.

 

[1911Tuner]

Thanks for the post 1911Tuner. Good to see some history as well as debunking all of the typical internet rumor stuff that floats around

Y'welcome. I try to put things into perspective when I can.

And before this one comes up...

Another notion that comes largely from opinion is that...with the High Power...Browning corrected the flaws present in the 1911...and one of the corrections was to eliminate the grip safety.

Browning didn't have complete autonomy with the P-35 any more than he did with the 1911...and he didn't "correct" anything. He gave the man who signed his paycheck what he asked him for. If a grip safety had been requested, you can bet your blue Guccis that the High Power would be wearing a grip safety today. Besides...Browning died several years before the P-35 made its debut. There were many hands in it prior to that.

Like the 1911...the High Power was just another assignment. A job to be completed to the satisfaction of the people who hired him. No more and no less.

 

[MCgunner]

I feel safer carrying a 1911 cocked and locked that I do a Glock, put it that way. The more safeties the better on such a short, light trigger action. I much prefer DA myself, though. And, I don't go round with my revolvers cocked in my leather because I'm so danged macho and brilliant I know I'm infallible in my gun handling and can never make a mistake. They say to load 5 in a Colt SAA with the hammer down. No one I know carries six with the hammer back.

Safe gun handling also includes the use of safety systems provided by the platform. I quite like the redundancy built into the 1911's systems and when I was shooting them in competition, kicking the safety off for the shot was automatic. Takes practice. You gonna buy a gun and never shoot it, you're not going to be safe with it no matter how many safeties are on it. Learn to use the platform. I feel the same way about idiots that tape the grip safety down, morons.