Thoughts about grip safeties?

I would consider a grip safety as an automatic safeties (since it does not take conscious effort to use them), and as such don't seen a problem with them. The ONLY things they protect against is if the trigger is accidentally snagged and possible offer some protection from discharge if the gun is dropped.

There are only two guns styles that I can think of that use a grip safety, the M1911 and the Springfield Armory XD (and XDm) series. Owning versions of each, I can say that mechanically or operationally, I have never seen a disadvantage to them on those models. In both cases the guns are completely c0cked when normally chambered, the triggers are relatively lite with short travel. The only other safety on a 1911 is the manual safety.

Springfield choice to go with the grip safety and have the gun fully c0cked is in contrast to Glock's "safe action" which only partially c0cks the gun.

No safety in the world will protect against someone violating the basic rules of gun safety.

I don't think it is better said than what I heard attributed to Jeff Cooper - it is an elegant solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

Further, I would have a hard time counting how many times I've seen or in competition have had the problem where my grip wasn't quite right, and I didn't fully disengage the safety with my palm and hung the trigger up while I was on target. I don't any more, but have definitely had the problem and had to pick through grip safeties to find one that worked for me.

Now, all of that being said? In a 1911 if you aren't gripping the gun you probably aren't getting it to go off even if you do something stupid. Since most if not all of us do stupid things occasionally that's not all bad.

Thinkingblade

Only personal opinion, OK ? I have single action semi autos that have the grip safety, and that do not. Now, to carry c0cked and locked, which do you think I choose ? I do not carry a single action semi auto c0cked with one in the tube UNLESS I have that one extra safety. AND ALL THREE safeties are in good working order. I mean checked occasionally, by the only gunsmith I trust.

Now for a strictly range handgun, well, that does not really matter. Personally, i have never experienced any problem with the grip safety interfering with a shot on the range or during a match. One thing I am anal about always using a proper grip to control recoil primary. If I catch myself relaxing, and loosing control of a proper grip, next thing is I would get a stove pipe, cause a slack wrist followed. LOL.

I like my Colts and trust my life to the 1911. Just my personal preference, and peace of mind.

Edit : 3 ACTIVE safeties on a Colt 1911.

1) The slide lock/sear block

2) The half c0ck safety, the hammer should not be able to fall through and contact the firing pin UNLESS the trigger is in the rearward position.

3) The grip safety

Two more additional PASSIVE safety devices

1) the inertia firing pin - Hammer sitting on the firing pin ( unc0cked position ) can not contact the primer of the chambered round.

2) the disconnect - the gun will NOT fire out of battery

Well, I 100% of the time stay away from stating somehting emphatically like the gun owner here.

So a grip safety has advantages and disadvantages in different circumstances. And Perhaps MIGHT help keep a novice from hurting themselves, OR may give them a false sense of security.

Just like airbags in cars. Do people drive more dangerously because there's an airbag to sav them. So there best way to safety is knowledge, trainign and practice.

it is also possible a grip safety may prevent you from firing in a compromised stance. It is also possible, like everything, by introducing complexity, you also introduce oppty for somethign to go wrong or break. Maybe at an important moment.

So, who knows? If you want it get it, don't rely on it.

The only thing it really helps people with, is getting them used to a proper grip. I personally don't have a problem with them, as I've owned an XD with one and a Beretta 92 without. When CC, I'd prefer to have that extra level of safety just in case anyways, especially since it's something that would be disengaged simply by grabbing the gun. It's not necessary, but it's not anything I've ever seen become a problem.

Eh, I like mine on the 1911. And I see their use on older single-action autos due to the nature of the firing mechanism. Is it a requirement? No.

And no, it wouldn't keep anyone from blowing their brains out. You can never engineer to prevent stupid.

A grip safety is like any other safety-- it helps the user be safe, but it cannot replace the most important safety: The one between your ears.

I can see the perceived need for a single action gun, or a very light short double action.

My Xd and 1911's had grip safetys. I'm not crazy about them.

I prefer a da/sa hammer fired gun anyway- in that case a grip/trigger safety is not really necessary.

Pointless, and a grip safety would in no way stop somebody from blowing their brains out, if their hand is around the grip, then the safety would be disengaged.

That is the main thing that I have against Glocks. I think the Springfield XD are much better with their grip safeties. They don't really get in the way, as long as you are holding it correctly, the grip safety is not a problem.

A safety can't keep a novice from blowing his brains out :p (hang-fire for example)

I'm not a big fan of safeties, my Ruger p95 doesnt have one at all. Just a long trigger pull on the first shot (double action, single action thereafter), and dual de-cockers.

I conceal carry my Ruger with one in the barrel all the time. The external hammer/long, hard trigger pull is a safety in itself

A gun that isn't loaded is just a paper weight.