Is there a 1911 manufactured WITHOUT the grip safety?

[spiroxlii]

This is slightly off-topic, but if you want something like a 1911 but without a grip safety... what about a Browning Hi-Power? Originally, Browning had to work around the 1911 patents when he designed the Hi-Power, but once those patents expired, many 1911 features ended up being incorporated into the Hi-Power. I'm not saying that a 1911 and a Hi-Power are twins, but they're definitely close siblings.

 

[45auto]

If a manufacturer would produce a "1911-like" handgun without a grip safety, they would sell a lot of guns IMO.

 

[Jim Watson]

I think it would have to be a new gun with whatever took up the backstrap not interchangeable onto a real 1911. The corporate lawyers and Internet Legal Worriers would have a fit over a part that could be installed on an existing gun that would "disable a safety feature." Probably the reason Novak is so tight with The Answer.

When Arminex was in business, that was less of a worry. They would sell their one-piece backstrap separately and it would fit a Colt.

Rescomp, the South African maker of IPSC gear, once advertised but never delivered a similar device. I asked Mrs Resca at SHOT about it some years ago and she said they had made an error in the manufacture and had a crate full of off-spec backstraps that the press of other business did not allow them to rework for sale. I said if she would sell me a couple as-is I would undertake to have them fixed locally. She said she would but nothing ever came of it.

 

[1911Tuner]

If a manufacturer would produce a "1911-like" handgun without a grip safety, they would sell a lot of guns IMO.

Probably...but I wouldn't buy one for the same reason that I'd never pin an existing grip safety...and it's not just about liability.

In the event that the gun is dropped, and flips muzzle up before it hits the ground...the grip safety automatically activates to block the trigger. A gun that hits the ground with the thumb safety in the OFF position...which can happen during a hasty draw that is fouled by covering garments...the trigger's inertia could bump the disconnect with enough force to move the sear.

That often happens during slide release with guns that have a little hitch in the fire control group. Witness the number of instances of hammer follow to half-cock...and that's just from the inertial trigger bounce that occurs from the slide going to battery. If the gun were dropped, the half-cock notch could easily get past the sear...and BANG!

Not even the Series 80 system negates this, as it deactivates off the trigger. The tiny plunger in the slide may offer a bit of extra wiggle room...but not a whole lot.

Although it's not documented, I have a strong suspicion that this is the reason that the grip safety was specified in the original government contracts. The pistol was primarily intended for horse-mounted cavalry...which would mean a longer drop to the ground, and it wouldn't be much of a stretch to believe that
dropping an off-safe pistol while trying to deal with a frightened horse is a very real possibility.

 

[Old Fuff]

While you have a good point, there is nothing in the known trial records or reports concerning the pistol being dropped, relative to the grip safety.

What the cavalry was officially concerned about was that a trooper could have problems controling his mount, and be forced to holster the pistol while it was cocked but unlocked. Remember at the time the prototypes did not have a safety lock (manual safety).

Unofficially, they were pushing for the Colt New Service revolver, which they pointed out, had a positive hammer block. It would be safe to reholster so long as the trigger could follow the hammer down.

 

[Cougfan2]

I had a Colt .380 Govt. model that did not have the grip safety. I eventually sold it because I originally bought it as a carry piece and never got comfortable carrying it cocked and locked because several times when I took it off I found the thumb safety had gone to the off position while I was carrying it.

Have a different carry gun now, but can kick myself for selling the Colt as it was the most accurate .380 I've ever shot. :banghead:

 

[BattleChimp Potemkin]

The Ballester Molina: Very similar to the 1911 in size and capability. It takes 1911 magazines, and you can use a few 1911 parts, like the barrel and bushing. The trigger pivots instead of slides. None of the firecontol parts will work on the Ballester. Neat gun, was an idiot for selling it.

 

[Spartacus451]

I would just get one with the grip safety and pin it. It is handy to be able to remove the backstrap when working on the gun. You won't notice the grip safety when it is pinned.

 

[1911Tuner]

While you have a good point, there is nothing in the known trial records or reports concerning the pistol being dropped, relative to the grip safety.

Yup. I know. It's just a suspicion. I'll leave my grip safeties in place and fully functional, thank ya very much, 'cause...I know that as long as that ol' devil, gravity is in force...I just might drop one.

 

[Tom Fury]

Maybe more than you asked for:

Smith & Wesson 4506.

Cheers, TF

 

[herohog]

From a distance, yes, the Star Super and a 1911 look striking similar, side by side, its obvious they are not alike. Field strip one, Oh yeah, WAY different animals. I love them both dearly.

 

[Old Fuff]

I know that as long as that ol' devil, gravity is in force...I just might drop one.

The Army was way ahead of ya'. They not only tied a short string (lanyard) to the pistol, but to the magazine base as well.

Or did some Jarhead invent that?

 

[HammerBite]

I suppose that if you dropped your cocked and unlocked 1911 and it was dangling on a lanyard alongside your horse while careering through the local vegetation, a grip safety might be a good idea.

 

[Billy Shears]

What the cavalry was officially concerned about was that a trooper could have problems controling his mount, and be forced to holster the pistol while it was cocked but unlocked. Remember at the time the prototypes did not have a safety lock (manual safety).

Unofficially, they were pushing for the Colt New Service revolver, which they pointed out, had a positive hammer block. It would be safe to reholster so long as the trigger could follow the hammer down.

This is rather funny, given that the army eventually shortened the 1911's trigger and machined those relief cuts into the frame aft of the trigger guard because of complaints that the trigger reach was too long for soldiers with smaller hands.

You ever pick up a Colt New Service and check out the trigger reach on that? If you have smaller hands or shorter fingers, you're simply not going to be able to shoot that gun well in double action mode, especially given the somewhat heavy triggers military guns so often have (and which my Colt M1917 has).

 

[Old Fuff]

If the truth were known, the Cavalry did not want an automatic pistol in any shape or form. They did everything they could to get the whole idea dumped. Not once did they write a favorable report on any pistol they tested. They were the source that demanded a grip safety, and later the safety lock (manual safety). Browning didn't like either, but in the end he had to go along.

Their idea of an ideal sidearm was Colt's New Service, with its "positive" hammer block, that Colt claimed, "absolutely prevented an accidental discharge." Another company named Smith & Wesson tried to interest them in their New Century or "Triple Lock" model, but never made any headway. However the Army did adopt the revolver they wanted as the Model 1909, Cal. 45 revolver (not to be confused with the later Model 1917).

Neither the size of the handle or weight of the trigger pull mattered – they were simply looking for an excuse to badmouth what became the 1911 pistol.

 

[Billy Shears]

Well, as Robert A. Heinlein observed, old sailors want wooden ships, old soldiers want horse cavalry.

 

[steveracer]

True. Where are my wooden ships, anyway?

 

[1911Tuner]

I suppose that if you dropped your cocked and unlocked 1911 and it was dangling on a lanyard alongside your horse while careering through the local vegetation, a grip safety might be a good idea.

*chuckle*

Yeah...but there were some people who thought that a device that prevented the gun from being fired unless purposely held in a firing grip
was a good idea...and those reasons may have been legitimate at the time...whatever they were.

The US Army liked the grip safety on the Luger, and requested one on their
new autopistol. Whether they were actually trying to make life difficult for Browning is unknown. I'm sure that some of them were. Others may have had sound reasons. Hard to say, since they're all dead and can't respond.

As for me...The grip safety is a non-issue. Its presence doesn't bother me, and neither would its absence. It's there though, and disabling or eliminating any engineered safety device on a gun is a little risky in today's litigation-happy society.

 

[Jim Watson]

Browning didn't like either, but in the end he had to go along.

I think it more accurate to say he didn't see the need for mechanical safety devices on a gun with exposed hammer. All his hammerless or enclosed hammer guns had thumb safety or grip safety, usually both. I presume without prodding from his paying customers, since they are shown in the patents.

I will point out that when the Army said they wanted a safety or some other feature, that Colt and Mr Browing provided it in Johnny-quick-time. The Army set out the requirements for a .45 sidearm in 1906. They had a final design in 1911, not to mention the interim 1909 revolver. Heck, the government couldn't procure a new toothbrush in five years, now.

 

[45auto]

Not even the Series 80 system negates this, as it deactivates off the trigger. The tiny plunger in the slide may offer a bit of extra wiggle room...but not a whole lot.

Tuner, I would have thought the series 80 would prevent that?

The impact would have to move two levers and plunger/spring.

 

[1911Tuner]

Tuner, I would have thought the series 80 would prevent that?

The impact would have to move two levers and plunger/spring.

It probably would...but those two levers and that little bitty spring don't offer a whole lot of extra resistance...so it would depend on how far the gun falls...what sort of surface it hits...and how it's oriented when it hits. Like dropping on the muzzle from 10 feet. If it hits almost any way except straight down, it won't fire.

Again...just a few rambling thoughts, and not to be taken as gospel.

 

[Old Fuff]

Browning did indeed provide grip and manual safeties on his pocket hammerless pocket pistols - both at Colt and Fabrique Nantionale (FN). They were aimed toward civilian sales where firearms experience and training was unpredictable. He didn't consider that to be the case where his exposed hammer military pistols were concerned, perhaps being influenced by the old Colt Single Action Army model of '73, which was popular in frontier Utah where he lived.

So far as the military pistols are concerned, he had been retained by Colt for the specific purpose (among others) to develop a sidearm for the U.S. Army and hopefully other foreign military services, and he did just that. Throughout the process he would design a prototype. Colt would make them, and the Army would conduct trials. Browning personally attended all of these, and when necessary made adjustments or repairs on the prototypes as might be needed. All of the other companies involved sent hired "mechanics" to do such work. When the trial was over and reports of the results submitted, Browning would again go back to his drawing board, using both his own experience and the reports for guidance. Colt then, lost no time making whatever was called for. While there was sometimes some disagreements between Browning, Colt, and the Army concerning the best way to go, there was never what might be called an adversarial relationship, as the were all working toward the same goal.

So far as a dropped pistol discharging was concerned, Browning believed that his inertial firing pin design provided sufficient protection to prevent that. He might have been wrong, but at the time there wasn’t any evidence to suggest it.

 

[ccsniper]

star made some

 

[1911Tuner]

So far as the military pistols are concerned, he had been retained by Colt for the specific purpose (among others) to develop a sidearm for the U.S. Army

To expound just a bit on Fuff's notes...

It's a myth that Browning had full autonomy, or that he "invented" the pistol by himself. In addition to the Army Ordnance Board's input, he had a team of Colt's top engineers at his disposal...and everyone had a finger or two in the pistol.

Another one that won't let go is the notion that Browning "corrected" the mistakes and the design flaws of the 1911 with the Hi-Power.

Sorry. He was hired to do a job, and he gave what he was asked for. If
The P-35 had been ordered with a grip safety, you can take it to the bank that there would be one on the gun today. Besides...Browning died well before the Hi-Power was finished...so he didn't really have a lot to do with the final design.

 

[spiroxlii]

Browning didn't make the Hi-Power different from a 1911 in so many ways because he was "correcting" problems he saw in the 1911 design. When he was contracted to design the Hi-Power, the 1911 was still under patent, so he pretty much had to design a pistol that did not violate patent law.

Once the 1911 patents expired, some 1911 design features did find their way into at least some versions of the Hi-Power, like the Saive-Browning Model of 1928. It included the removable barrel bushing and takedown sequence of the Colt 1911.