Bout to enter back into the realm of the 1911.

[bigfatdave]

Since the grip safety and the thumb safety perform redundant functions

I disagree, passive and manual safeties perform different functions

Now, if there was a thumb safety and some other type of safety lever, that would be a bit much ... but a passive safety feature that has no negative effect on the gun seems foolish to remove.

===

RE: flinching
everybody flinches to one degree or another, get her focusing on follow-through or tracking the front sight, or anything ... and hopefully she'll flinch less as well as flinching after the shot has headed downrange.
Ball and dummy drills will reveal a flinch, but it takes a lot of dummy drills to lessen it (the goal being that the shooter expects the dummy more than the louder live round)

 

[scythefwd]

bfd... my issue with it isnt that it doesnt edfect the gun negatively... its that it doesnt effect the gun positively..anything that doesnt improve reliability, accuracy, or function of a gun is extra.. and can be done away with as long as it can be done away with safely. Any safety that requires an action to allow the gun to fire is suspect. the fact that you have to manually manipulate two levers to operate the 1911 irks me. the fact that one is done because you are holding the gun doesnt change that it is a lever that requires direct shooter interaction to make the gun fireable. one or the other adds a safety feature...they stop the gun from firing... both are redundant in function... they stop the gun from going boom. I agree to the heavy steel platform wont cure flinch... and I was plannimg on dummy roumds and working on followthrough.

 

[scythefwd]

sorry.. will edit above later.. on phone.

 

[9mmepiphany]

Thanks for the info 9mm.

Interesting on the thumb safety.. I do notice that he never put another grip safety on, but moved to thumb safeties on the rest of his designs.

Well, it is true that he never put another grip safety on a CF pistol after the 1911, but then there was only one...the P-35.

He designed 9 centerfire pistols in his career and the only one with only a thumb safety is the P-35.

The others:
1. Colt 1900 - rear sight safety
2. Colt 1902 - no safeties
3. Colt 1903 - no safeties or slide lock
4. Colt 1905 - no safeties
5. Colt 1908 - thumb and grip safety...and the first magazine safety in 1916
6. Colt 1908 Hammerless - thumb and grip safety
7. FN M-1910 - thumb, grip and magazine safety

...where I believe that any redundant system should be removed. Since the grip safety and the thumb safety perform redundant functions, albeit in a different manner, either could go.. I prefer the thumb safety.

Historically speaking, the thumb safety is the redundant safety...at least Browning believe so when he first submitted his proposal for the 1911

Remember that carrying the 1911 cocked and locked wasn't common until the 1940s [/QUOTE]

 

[scythefwd]

Remember that carrying the 1911 cocked and locked wasn't common until the 1940s

True, but that doesn't have any bearing on how they are carried today.

 

[9mmepiphany]

While I have always...since the early 70s...always carried in Condition 1, I know many folks who do not.

I'm not even confident enough to think that most users of the 1911 do...that is why they make holster safety straps both ways

I even know a couple of very well versed gun handlers who carry with a round chambered and the thumb safety off...I spoke to them about it and they made a conscious decision and put their faith in the grip safety and their trigger finger discipline

 

[Skylerbone]

+1 for double ear protection, +1 for leaving the grip safety alone. Beyond that, and it's nothing personal, get her some professional help.

My mother being an immigrant who had never driven was taught by my father, glad I wasn't born yet. Unfortunately I was around and still recall in 1984 the day he bought her a car with a manual transmission. Dad's a fine driver but mom never learned to drive that car. Dad learned about instant depreciation.

 

[Bozwell]

I've never seen someone so convinced to remove a safety device for no good reason.

The grip safety is part of the original design, you concede that it does not negatively affect the gun in any way, and there are tangible, real-world scenarios where the safety device could do its job and improve the safety of the weapon (e.g., when you drop the firearm). Seems to me like you're searching for some way to justify your irrational position and at the end of the day just being stubborn about it in the face of overwhelming logic to leave the safety intact.

 

[CraigC]

I've never seen someone so convinced to remove a safety device for no good reason.

Some folks just get an idea in their head and there is not changing it. Even if they ask for opinions, what they really seek is confirmation. Like this one.

 

[scythefwd]

craig.. its a difference of views.. you see no reason to remove it, as it does no harm...
I see no reason to keep it.. because it does nothing good for the firearm (removing puts it on the same safety level as my hp, my ruger without transfer bar, etc...A level I'm more than comfortable with)

Actually handling it, it feels better than the colt 1991a1 I couldnt' get rid of quick enough. It's still in need of a very thorough cleaning.. its pretty dirty.