Novak "The Answer" 1 peice backstrap

[gulfwarvet]

Has anyone read about the new Novak 1 piece backstrap that eliminates the grip safety and offers more control and a faster presentation?

They have not given any pricing for it yet, but they told me that it will be for sale this summer.

Some people might think that the elimination of the grip safety will make the gun unsafe.

I don't believe that at all. there are many examples of 1911's that do not have a grip safety. Star BM comes to mind.

I wanted to get some opinions about this idea, and I will be using this on my next build.

the range is hot, fire away :D

[FreeMe]

I read a test report on a 1911 with the "Answer" installed. I gotta say that I'm still scratching my head and wondering, "answer to what?" I've owned and carried other autos with thumb safeties and no grip safety, and had instances of the thumb safety mysteriously disengaging while in high-quality holsters. This is one reason why I like the 1911 design (BTW - if it doesn't have a grip safety, it's not a 1911) - another layer of protection from an AD. No, I never had a holstered gun go off, but the grip safety is added insurance that I think is reasonable - and it's worked fine for almost 100 years.

I've read complaints from some who claim that their GS doesn't always disengage when they need it to, and I can only surmise that this "problem" has something to do with the trend to stray far away from the original 1911 design...

Anyway - I expect, from what I've read about it, that the "Answer" might be great for a game gun, but I wouldn't even consider putting it on a carry gun. If a 1911 for carry is showing problems in this regard, I think the real answer lies somewhere else.

Not what you wanted to hear, I'm sure, and maybe I'm full of it - but since seeing this write-up, I've been chomping at the bit to vent about it. Sorry...

[1911Tuner]

...In search of a question.

Disabling or eliminating a designed-in safety isn't a good idea on several levels, and...like the Series 80 part removal, and the Swartz "Bypass" method...could come back and bite ya on the backside in a criminal or civil action that generally follow defensive and accidental shootings.

It's presumed that anything that is made is made for a purpose. The question that begs to be asked is: "What's this thing for?" All too often, the only real answer is: "To sell." The strategy of any sales campaign is to first
convince the consumer that he needs it, or...ideally...that he's lucky to have gotten along without it thus far. Several gun-related examples come to mind.

The shock buff. (Without this, you're destroying your frame.)

The Power Extractor (If your pistol doesn't have this...you NEED this pistol.)

The full-length guide rod. (Your recoil spring is kinking, and making your pistol less reliable)

The list could go on...but you get the point.

[gulfwarvet]

You know that the original design for the 1911 did not include a grip safety.

The safety was added at the request of the Calvary because they felt that it would be safer for them while on horseback.

I read that John Browning didn't want to add it to the design, but if he didn't include it the 1911 would not have been adopted by the Army.

IMHO, In a pure single action gun the grip safety is not necessary.
Any way I can simplify the gun is one less part that can break or malfunction, all things being equal, this part should enhance the guns reliability to some degree.
If you find that your thumb safety disengages in a holster, you need either a new thumb safety or a detent drilled in the safety so that this doesn't happen.
If you build a 1911 with this new 1 piece backstrap, I don't see how your legal liability increases.

You wouldn't have a problem in court if you used a Star BM or a Sig 220 SAO or any other single action gun without a grip safety.

Now "pinning" down an existing grip safety may cause you a problem in court, but building a gun without any grip safety from the beginning shouldn't be a problem.

I also feel that if NOVAK thought that this new part would open users up for a liability problem, he wouldn't sell it. ;)

[1911Tuner]

You know that the original design for the 1911 did not include a grip safety. The safety was added at the request of the Calvary because they felt that it would be safer for them while on horseback.

Not quite. The first prototypes that were submitted in 1910 had the grip safety, but not the thumb safety. The US Cavalry requested a manual safety to enable the horse-mounted soldiers to place the gun on-safe with one hand while regaining control of a frightened horse.

Pictured below is one of the 1910s sans thumb safety...one of only eight ever produced...two or three of which were later modified to include the thumb safety, and resubmitted for approval.

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e243/1911Tuner/1910.gif

Quote:

>You wouldn't have a problem in court if you used a Star BM or a Sig 220 SAO or any other single action gun without a grip safety.<
********

Because a grip safety isn't part of the original design. You can't held liable for a missing safety that wasn't there to start with.

[gulfwarvet]

I was reading the article by Wiley Clapp published in the G&A the complete book of the model 1911 issue 2006.
I that article reviewing the new Novak Backstrap I quote from that text " The 1911's grip safety was installed at the behest of the Calvary Board that contributed to the original pistol's design. It has been said that John Browning was not in favor of the device." Further in the article Mr Clapp goes on to say," properly used, the mechanical safety is sufficient security against inadvertent firing.

Mr Clapp makes the argument for elinmination of the grip safety much more eloquently than I could. If you can get this special issue of G&A and read the review on this part and the reasoning behind it, mabe you will understand where I'm coming from.

[1911Tuner]

I was reading the article by Wiley Clapp published in the G&A the complete book of the model 1911 issue 2006.
I that article reviewing the new Novak Backstrap I quote from that text " The 1911's grip safety was installed at the behest of the Calvary Board that contributed to the original pistol's design. It has been said that John Browning was not in favor of the device."


Just goes to show how wrong some of the gun magazine writers can be. Want accurate information? One word: Clawson...

[auto45]

Not that I would "pin" a grip safety ;) , but my question would be "whose" liability is it if you install one?

If it's still the "owners" and not Novaks, then you would have to weigh the cost of the "Answer" to pinning the grip safety...not that I would do that...of course. :D What's the cost of the "Answer"?

I'm not sure of a realistic "circumstance" where the grip safety would prevent an AD, on a standard 1911, to be honest.

[gulfwarvet]

Just goes to show how wrong some of the gun magazine writers can be. Want accurate information? One word: Clawson...

Who is Clawson?

[1911Tuner]

I'm not sure of a realistic "circumstance" where the grip safety would prevent an AD, on a standard 1911, to be honest.

Besides the not uncommon event of the thumb safety being inadvertently wiped off in a holster, probably not much. If the gun were dropped muzzle up on a hard surface...causing the trigger to inertially bump the disconnect when the thumb safety is off-safe, it could possibly fire through the same mechanics that causes hammer follow during a slidelock reload.

It would matter not to a jury in a civil action, though. You altered the safety and made it non-functional. That, my friend is known as "Reckless Disregard" and even if the absence or presence of the safety wouldn't have changed anything, the attorney for the plaintiff will paint an ugly picture for the jury. His job is to take your money and give it to his client through whatever means happens to be at his disposal.
When he asks you if you had a good reason for making an inherently "dangerous" weapon even less safe...What will your answer be?

[auto45]

I'm pleading the "fifth". :) And then going out to drink one!

[1911Tuner]

Who is Clawson?

Charles W. Clawson...The historian who has compiled what is probably the most comprehensive text on the 1911 and 1911A1 service pistols and commercial models up to this time. He's about ready to publish an updated, expanded version on the military service pistols, and I await it with bated breath.

They're getting expensive...about 100 bucks a copy...but worth the cost. His books are high on the "Must have" list for all students and afficianados of the 1911 pistol.

Gun publications are often accurate, but every so often, I see something presented as gospel that is so utterly wrong as to be absurd. Take what information that you obtain therein with a small dose of salt.

[1911Tuner]

I'm pleading the "fifth". :) And then going out to drink one!


If you have enough money left to buy a cold one... :D

[deadmarsh]

Tuner:

What Clawson books do you recommend...I might need to add a few to my collection? I've got the big book already...


Dead

[1911Tuner]

Tuner:

What Clawson books do you recommend...I might need to add a few to my collection? I've got the big book already...Dead

I have The Collector's Guide to the Colt .45 Service Pistols: Models of 1911 and 1911A1, 3rd edition and the Colt .45 Goverment Models (Commercial Series) 2nd edition...and looking forward to his new one dealing with the service models. Many small things to be found...things that escape the notice of even the well-versed folks.

If a man is on the prowl for a collectible pistol, these books are indispensible in seeing that one doesn't get ripped off, and money well-spent if an unscrupulous or uneducated seller claims that one is all orginal, the Clawson forearmed shopper can point at somethin' and say..."Not!"

And we are now about three feet wide of the topic...

[deadmarsh]

Thanks, Tuner...

Slow day here at the shop, so I can play with the net and my favorite website...

BTW, I've got a ton of work to do (hands on type), but I just feel like doing the odd jobs that take time waiting and not much actually doing (baking parts, ordering, follow-up calls, spending $$$, reading, spending time with long-distance net comrades).

Ever get days like that where you really don't want to do the thing you love doing the most???


Dead

[1911Tuner]

Ever get days like that where you really don't want to do the thing you love doing the most???

Oh yeah...Some days I just can't bring myself to mess with a 1911 pistol or play with the dogs like I should...but not too often.

[1911Tuner]

For the benefit of the students of the 1911, and how it came to be...Here's a link that you can use to see pictures of the pistol's development, from the beginning with the 1903 and 1905 pistols. Use the scroll-down box to pick a model. You can see that the grip safety was on the 1911's predecessors, along with some factual information that will be useful in your ongoing education. Learn about the double-link, and how it led to the development of the tilting barrel design copied in so many modern pistlos, including the Glock and the Sig. Interesting site. Surf around and enjoy.

While you're at it...when you get the top page open, scroll down to the picture of the pristine USGI Colt and see if you can spot what's wrong with it.

http://www.coltautos.com/

[RickB]

I find the liability of a safety that might be on, and then again, might be off, to be of much greater concern than the hypothetical legal variety. All the grip safeties are pinned in my house, and The Answer is . . . correct! It does, however, need to come in arched form.

[Ericthenorse]

The one piece backstrap is not a new idea.... Novak just took someone elses idea after the company went under.... For a cary piece, I see no use for it, but I would love to have one on my competition pistol.... We shoot at a "cold" range, so my gun is never loaded untill I am on the line ready to shoot..... As with any other "upgrade" it is dependant on the use of the pistol... Personally, I like things like Shock Buff's... I can feal a difference in my gun with one installed.... Again, I would not want one on a cary pistol, because it is just one more thing to go wrong at exactly the wrong time....

[1911Tuner]

I find the liability of a safety that might be on, and then again, might be off, to be of much greater concern than the hypothetical legal variety. All the grip safeties are pinned in my house,

Hope ya don't find out about civil litigators the hard way, m'fren. If you take a firearm to a gunsmith with a deactivated safety...regardless of how it was deactivated...he won't likely touch it unless you agree to let him restore the safety to operational condition...and pay for it. If you refuse, he'll probably write that on the repair order and have you sign it...at least unless he wants to give somebody his house, his life savings, and about half of what he earns for the rest of his career.
I know that I won't do it for somebody. I might tell'em HOW to do it...but I won't touch it.

[Candiru]

While you're at it...when you get the top page open, scroll down to the picture of the pristine USGI Colt and see if you can spot what's wrong with it.

http://www.coltautos.com/

The picture's not very high-resolution, but isn't that an M1911 slide stop on an M1911A1?

Edit: I realized I forgot to rant. I don't really see the point of removing the grip safety; provided theyre useful and don't get in the way of the gun, the more safety devices the merrier. With the grip and manual safety, the 1911 is the only semi-auto designed to by used on horseback, which is a pretty good argument against those who claim that single-action semi-autos are accidents waiting to happen. Besides, it's always seemed such a waste to take an action that could be used for a beautiful trigger pull and intentionally put a double-action system in there.

[1911Tuner]

The picture's not very high-resolution, but isn't that an M1911 slide stop on an M1911A1?


Close. It's a Wilson Bulletproof slidestop. Good eye.

[deadmarsh]

I won't pin a grip safety or work on a gun that has one -- period... :mad:

I won't pin a grip safety or work on a gun that has one -- period... :butthead:

I won't pin a grip safety or work on a gun that has one -- period... :scared:

It would be easy for the customer to blame the smith if he ever got in a jam with the altered 1911, even with a document that he signed. People tend to say alot of untruths when their neck is in the rope...

Bad idea, terrible thought process, open to trouble...

I won't pin a grip safety or work on a gun that has one -- period... :mad: :butthead: :scared:

Have I made my point?

Hope so...


Dead

[Frank]

I find the liability of a safety that might be on, and then again, might be off, to be of much greater concern than the hypothetical legal variety. All the grip safeties are pinned in my house, and The Answer is . . . correct! It does, however, need to come in arched form.
+1 Johnny and Dead --

Having practiced law (albeit not this kind) for 30 years, I can assure you that I know how to twist every fact to my side's benefit. And have no doubt that if I had occasion to prosecute someone involved in a shooting, and if that person tampered with a safety device on his weapon (or did any number of other things), I could, and would, make a very big issue of it.

And you're going to then have to explain what you did and why. Everything that you have to explain makes your story tougher for the judge and jury to grasp and process. And by-and-large they are not going to be people who know or care about guns. And often one or more of them will have doubts about whether a private citizen ought to be able to have a gun in the first place.

So do you think that you'll have an explanation for disabling a safety device that's going to play well to the folks "in the cheap seats"? Any explanation is going to be just too "inside baseball" for them to care about.

If you think that you gain enough to justify the risk, that's your choice. Go ahead and make my day.

DVC

[1911Tuner]

If you think that you gain enough to justify the risk, that's your choice.

I hear ya, Frank. About all I can add is to remind one and all that the average jury member learned everything he or she knows about guns from watchin' TV. Really wanna try and explain to Soccermom Sue and Briefcase Bob that you disabled a safety so the gun would be more likely to fire? Go for it. I wanna be a fly on the wall so I can watch their frowns deepen as you dig yourself a deep hole.

I won't even install Hi-Viz sights on a carry gun unless it came that way...and I carry mine with hardball from the chamber to the bottom of the magazine.

[RickB]

I still subscribe to the theory of, "better to be judged by twelve, than carried by six". I can lucidly explain to a judge why I deactivated a safety, but would have a hard time explaining to my wife why I was dead.

[1911Tuner]

Searched until I found it. I've taken the "con" side of the hollowpoint debate for a while now, and invariably someone will ask to see documentation in regard to the use of hollowpoint ammo by a private citizen making a difference in the outcome of a criminal proceeding...stating that if the shoot was good, it should make no difference. >SHOULD NOT< being the operative phrase.

Well...Here's one that may have set a precedent. Read the first post. It's about 3 paragraphs down. You can probably expect more of the same. Not that it's anything new. The hollowpoint issue has probably been introduced every time it was used in a shooting. It's just that in this one, the jurors admitted to it being a deciding factor. Knee jerk reactions to a grandstand play has sent many people to the penitentiary.

Read it and think about tinkering with a safety device...deeply. Even on a Gamer or a Range Queen...If your best bud shoots himself in the foot with it, and is unable to work for a couple of years while the bills pile up and the mortgage company is threatening to begin foreclosure...and his kids are suffereing because of it...Do you really believe that he won't sue you? Willing to bet the house and your kids' futures on it?

Read...

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=248742

[1911Tuner]

I can lucidly explain to a judge why I deactivated a safety, but would have a hard time explaining to my wife why


Except you won't be explaining it to a judge. That would probably be easy compared to the panel of 12. If you can't reliably grip-deactivate the safety, get it adjusted to
require only a tiny bit of compression to make it happen. It's not hard to do.

[Frank]

I still subscribe to the theory of, "better to be judged by twelve, than carried by six". I can lucidly explain to a judge why I deactivated a safety, but would have a hard time explaining to my wife why I was dead.
[1] There's a good chance that one or more members of that jury aren't sure you should have a gun in the first place. At least half the members of that jury know nothing about guns.

[2] I seriously doubt that most judges would really care. Not all that many judges know or care about guns, and there are plenty of down right anti-gun judges out there.

[3] There's no reason why defending yourself with a gun with an operational grip safety would reduce your chances of a successful outcome. I've put on the order of 100,000 rounds through various 1911s -- at the range, in competition and in training classes -- and never once has one failed to fire because of the grip safety.

DVC

[Ericthenorse]

I still don't see how a de-activated grip safety would come into play when a selfe defense type shooting happens.. If you meant to pull the trigger, then it maters not wheather the pistol has all of it's safety hoo-haws functioning... Since you would be activating(or de-activating) them anyway to fire the weapon....

I do, however, see a problem if you had an accidental discharge that caused an injury... Then having the GS pinned or otherwise de-activated could be the one thing that sends you to prison....

Does someone have a link to this backstrap so that I might look at one???

[1911Tuner]

Plowin' the sea, Frank...Plowin' the sea. :D

[Ericthenorse]

I found it... For anyone that wants to read the article.... http://www.gunsandammomag.com/ga_handguns/novak_081406/

I wonder if they make one in stainless????? :D

[kmcgovern]

so tuner, what's in the rest of the Mag? :)

[kmcgovern]

I'll have to wait until I get home to read that article since I can't access it from work. I use powrball ammo myself for home defense ,as I would think ball could be less safe from an over penetration standpoint. Powrball however, with the ball profile, feeds perfectly in my gun and will still expand when it hits something. just my 2 cents.

[RickB]

I've perused the holstered 1911s at various practical competitions (where I see the most 1911s assembled in the same place), and see a 50%-100% rate of pinned gripped safeties. Sorry, guys. When the gun absolutely has to go "BANG!", I can't tolerate doubt about whether or not the gun will fire. I've dry-fired guns with "sensitized" grip safeties, and they were no-go. Since the grip safety is (supposed to be) automatically deactivated when the gun is grasped, it plays no part in shooting the gun. It's a passive safety that comes into play when the gun is holstered, dropped, or otherwise out of hand. If your buddy shoots himself in the leg, the grip safety would play no part, active or not. It would be like loaning your car to a friend after deactivating the parking brake. If he gets in a fender-bender, how could the condition of the parking brake be an issue? Again, I'll gladly take my chances in court, rather than with a gun that sometimes fires.

[berkbw]

I have shot MANY cases of ball ammo, and NEVER have had, and never have HEARD of someone having a properly fitted GS failing. NEVER. In my own personal experience, I have never been able to cause a failure to point [whichever method of "point" I used] at where it was expected, verified by POI. And, BTW, I have actually played with the spring, no change. The "usual" reason mostly given is that it always gives the same "grip.

The only [yet, again, to me] argument is that fewer parts = fewer things to fail.

I think that the guys with race guns, and other "off-road" stuff should be able to do whatever you, and your class, say is OK. BUT ON THE ROAD - There is NO documented reason to uncover butte in court about this issue. GSs work, don't affect accuracy, and, for most of us "should" be a non-issue.

but, then, this doesn't address the reason for a handgun, at all, eh?

b-

"

[chimkayu]

Halito. First time the military let me fire the 1911 (like holdin' the Devil himself!) it had a grip safety. I never had a problem with the grip safety. I am glad the 1911 DOES have a grip safety. And mind stays stoked with hardball too. Love the 1911 (grip safety and all), South Carolina (beautiful beaches), and this forum.

C.......

[Frank]

I still don't see how a de-activated grip safety would come into play when a selfe defense type shooting happens...
This is, of course, the rub. In real life it may not necessarily be a simple and straight forward matter to demonstrate the elements that will support a claim of self defense with lethal force. If you’re on trial, obviously the prosecutor has elected to dispute that. It would then be your burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence the factors that permit you to use lethal force in self defense.

You will have to prove that you were reasonably in fear of an immediate attack by the alleged aggressor and that the aggressor reasonably appeared to be wielding force likely to result in death or grievous injury to you or a third person. To establish this it would be necessary to show that the alleged aggressor (1) reasonably had the means to deliver such level of force; (2) had manifest the intent to do so; (3) had taken overt action consistent with delivering such force; and (4) had not broken off the attack prior to your response with lethal force. It may also be necessary for you to be able to offer evidence from which your own innocence can be inferred. i. e., that you did not goad or taunt the alleged aggressor or otherwise instigate the alleged aggressor's actions. In some jurisdictions you must also establish that you could not retreat.

These are some of the pivotal factual issues raised under Anglo-American Common Law by a claim of self defense with lethal force. In some cases the evidence supporting the claim of self defense will be reasonably clear. But in many cases the evidence will be equivocal. Physical evidence may be limited or unclear. There may not be any third party witnesses. In any event, eye witnesses often get things wrong anyway and so may not help you.

So the principal evidence will generally be your testimony. That puts your credibility and character at issue. And here a prosecutor may effectively argue that your violent disposition and disregard of safety, as manifest by your willful disabling of a safety device on your lethal weapon, should be considered in assessing the truthfulness of your testimony regarding the events in question.

Sure you will get to tell your story. But you’re now the guy who took pains to make his dangerous gun even more dangerous, and remember the judge and jury probably know nothing about guns. So while one fact, such as the fact of having disabled a safety device, may not solely decide the result, it sure isn’t going to help in court. And this is a fact we have full control over. This fact doesn’t have to exist unless we cause it to exist.

That is, I'm afraid, the way it is in this world.

[gulfwarvet]

I find the liability of a safety that might be on, and then again, might be off, to be of much greater concern than the hypothetical legal variety. All the grip safeties are pinned in my house, and The Answer is . . . correct! It does, however, need to come in arched form.
+1 in the arched version

[gulfwarvet]

I found it... For anyone that wants to read the article.... http://www.gunsandammomag.com/ga_handguns/novak_081406/

I wonder if they make one in stainless????? :D

I checked with Novak and they said not now but depending on sales and customer requests, anything is possible.

[gulfwarvet]

I've perused the holstered 1911s at various practical competitions (where I see the most 1911s assembled in the same place), and see a 50%-100% rate of pinned gripped safeties. Sorry, guys. When the gun absolutely has to go "BANG!", I can't tolerate doubt about whether or not the gun will fire. I've dry-fired guns with "sensitized" grip safeties, and they were no-go. Since the grip safety is (supposed to be) automatically deactivated when the gun is grasped, it plays no part in shooting the gun. It's a passive safety that comes into play when the gun is holstered, dropped, or otherwise out of hand. If your buddy shoots himself in the leg, the grip safety would play no part, active or not. It would be like loaning your car to a friend after deactivating the parking brake. If he gets in a fender-bender, how could the condition of the parking brake be an issue? Again, I'll gladly take my chances in court, rather than with a gun that sometimes fires.
bravo on that point :cool:

[gulfwarvet]

If you are doing a new build from parts, using this part can't be seen as a deliberate act of disabling a safety if it was never in the gun you just built.

Can a lawyer argue that someone who defends himself with a Star PD or BM that never had any grip safety was wrong or somehow bad for using a 1911 type gun that had no grip safety?

If you build the gun using this part from the beginning, you can explain that this gun was not altered, it never had a grip safety to begin with. It leaves the lawyer no place to go with it.

Show photos of Star guns and the new SAO Sig P-220 or any other handgun without a grip safety to back up your point.

What if a major manufacturer or even Novak puts out a line of 1911's with this backstrap installed?

Can a lawyer argue that this makes these guns unsafe with so many other guns lacking them?

:nono:

[Iron bottom]

Well, I want one right now. I want to try to fit it to a Colt Double Eagle. The Double Eagle has a one piece main spring housing and combination beaver tail which is made of plastic, and from what I hear are nearly impossible to find if you have the misfortune to break yours.

[bushka]

The only way I would consider any firearm for home/self defense is one unaltered from the maker,or altered by the maker.
Thus,if this is what you want for ccw,then buy the whole pistol from Novaks.

[gulfwarvet]

I hear ya, Frank. About all I can add is to remind one and all that the average jury member learned everything he or she knows about guns from watchin' TV. Really wanna try and explain to Soccermom Sue and Briefcase Bob that you disabled a safety so the gun would be more likely to fire? Go for it. I wanna be a fly on the wall so I can watch their frowns deepen as you dig yourself a deep hole.

I won't even install Hi-Viz sights on a carry gun unless it came that way...and I carry mine with hardball from the chamber to the bottom of the magazine.
Just a little paranoid are we?
Those evil bullets with the big holes in them :scared: (just kidding) :D
Or is your use of only ball a matter of reliability?

[1911Tuner]

Just a little paranoid are we?
Or is your use of only ball a matter of reliability?

Not at all paranoid. In the event of a justifiable shoot, I'll have all I can handle in convincing a jury that I was justified without havin' to cover the smoke and mirrors presented by a sharp attorney who wants to use me to stick another feather in his cap.

Reliability? Surely you jest. Tuner's muh name...Reliability's muh game. My pistols will feed and function on ammo that'll choke a Glock like a pukin' buzzard. And...Nope. They don't rattle like a bucket of rocks, either neither. I carry hardball because about all that a lawyer can say about it is that it's big and it makes a hole...and if I can't solve my problem with 7 rounds of .45 hardball, it ain't likely that I CAN solve it without God's help.

[gulfwarvet]

Reliability? Surely you jest. Tuner's muh name...Reliability's muh game. My pistols will feed and function on ammo that'll choke a Glock like a pukin' buzzard. And...Nope. They don't rattle like a bucket of rocks, either neither. I carry hardball because about all that a lawyer can say about it is that it's big and it makes a hole...and if I can't solve my problem with 7 rounds of .45 hardball, it ain't likely that I CAN solve it without God's help.
You have made me see the light. I will only use hardball from now on! It works for the Millitary. you are just a bit too smart for my comfort level. ;)

[Joni Lynn]

Wow.............been awhile since I've seen such a hot topic!

[Frank]

If you are doing a new build from parts, using this part can't be seen as a deliberate act of disabling a safety ...Can a lawyer argue that this makes these guns unsafe ...
Understand that this has nothing to do with arguing whether a gun is unsafe. This is all about what a lawyer can argue about your disposition, character and predilection for violence if you (1) disable a safety device on a gun; or (2) have a version of a common type of gun specially built to your specifications to omit a safety device inherent in that particular design.

I'm quite comfortable that I don't gain anything worthwhile by disabling a grip safety, by removing a firing pin safety, or doing any number of other things to a gun that I might use in self defense. I'm quite comfortable that the guns I might use for such purposes are fully up to the task without modification. And I believe that I am up to the task -- which is really more to the point. So I see nothing to be gained by doing things that (1) don't materially improve my chances in an emergency; and (2) could make things considerably harder for me if I have to account for my actions.

My comments here, and the decisions I've made for myself, are based on my fairly intimate familiarity with the realities of our legal system. Understanding those realities is how I've supported myself and family for over 30 years -- keeping a roof over our heads and food on the table, and putting more than a couple very nice guns into our safes.

You are, of course, free to make your own decisions.

DVC

[1911Tuner]

Wow.............been awhile since I've seen such a hot topic!


Yeah...Fun, ain't it? :D

[Joni Lynn]

Well, you just can't have a one piece..................think of all the money the 1911 'smiths will lose due to not fitting grip safeties.

[Frank]

Pretty lively discussion --

DVC

[Joni Lynn]

At some point this one seems to be ..............well.................
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v217/Joni_Lynn/beating_ddead_HHhorse.gif

[Frank]

The funny thing is that I have the magazine and have read the article -- and this looks like a very nicely made, well designed part. But there does seem to be a question of what it's good for. As you might guess, I, for one, wouldn't put it on a carry gun. If the rules would permit it (and I'm not sure), it might be a useful addition to an IPSC gun. But my off the cuff guess is that it might not be permitted for IDPA, and I don't really care enough to do the research.

So this might be an excellent answer in search of a question.

DVC

[Joni Lynn]

I think it's just doing something different for the sake of doing something different.........they will sell a bunch of them just becasue of that.

[Iron bottom]

I hope you fine folks do not think that you will find justice in a court room. It is mostly about lining pockets, and the pockets that are lined will rarely be yours, even if you are justified in your actions.

[JWiley]

I need to chime in here. All of the legal ramifications depend on your state.

Last year in Georgia a law was passed (SB396) that provides criminal AND civil immunity for acts comitted in defence of ones self or others. In other words, if it was a good shoot you can not be procecuted nor can you be sued by anyone.

Neither a procecutor, judge nor jury will see or hear about your weapon. Be it race gun or rock.

[gulfwarvet]

:lm: Well, you just can't have a one piece..................think of all the money the 1911 'smiths will lose due to not fitting grip safeties.
:lm: :lm: :lm: :lm: :D :D

[gulfwarvet]

I need to chime in here. All of the legal ramifications depend on your state.

Last year in Georgia a law was passed (SB396) that provides criminal AND civil immunity for acts comitted in defence of ones self or others. In other words, if it was a good shoot you can not be procecuted nor can you be sued by anyone.

Neither a procecutor, judge nor jury will see or hear about your weapon. Be it race gun or rock.
Same here in Florida complete criminal and civil protection if the shoot is good. And we have no duty to retreat anymore (stand your ground law 2006)
I love Florida!!!!! :D

[Frank]

But it's not necessarily a good shoot until a grand jury or a jury says so. You are assuming that it's unquestionably a righteous shoot. But in any given case that might not be a foregone conclusion. You may very well need to prove that your shooting was indeed in lawful self defense and thus justified.

DVC

[lazlong]

When I got my first carry pistol, I couldn't shoot very well because I couldn't keep the barrel from moving around while I was pulling the trigger.

So I lightened the trigger pull, and my shot groups improved a lot.

Then I started handloading ammo. My groups got very tight for a loose combat handgun, and my rapid fire was improving as well.

I thought that all this sort of thing would look good if ever a case of self defense were to occur. "But I did all that to ensure that I would hit the target I wanted to hit, and no one else."

Then I read some of Ayoob's stuff (Say what you will, he does have some experience that most of us don't) about the possible legal repercussions of modified carry guns and handloaded ammo.

So I returned the gun to stock configuration and decided to carry a brand of ammo that police officers choose.

Instead of relying on modifications and special ammo to shoot better, I decided to learn to shoot what I had, and keep myself and my pistol in shape.

Americans have been shooting very well, and defending themselves and their families, for a few centuries, with much more primitive weapons and ammo than we have available today.

[Involute]

I carry mine with hardball from the chamber to the bottom of the magazine.

And here, I thought you were a Win Ranger guy all this time.

[OD*]

The picture's not very high-resolution, but isn't that an M1911 slide stop on an M1911A1?
Close. It's a Wilson Bulletproof slidestop. Good eye.


Sorry, but I disagree that there is anything wrong with the slide stop. Like I said in an earlier post when this was first brought up, it could be the picture itself, it appears to me that is the case. A closeup of the stop.

http://www.coltautos.com/images/1911a1_721200c.jpg

http://www.coltautos.com/1911a1ci_721200.htm

Hmm, I guess that link won't take you there directly.

http://www.coltautos.com/images/1911a1_721200_home_1.jpg

Click on this picture at Sam's site, scroll down to the third blue bar and then click on
Model 1911A1 Military & Government Model (National Match, Commercial Variations) and factory cases. Model (National Match, Commercial Variations) and factory cases.

Several better pictures of the 1940 there.

[1911Tuner]

Hmmm...Amazing what a little bad lighting will show. Thanks for the resolution OD. Sure loos=ks like WBP stop from the picture, and I stand corrected. ;)

[OD*]

You're correct Johnny, the smaller picture isn't the best. I wonder if monitors may affect it also? The slide stop looks correct in the small picture on our home computer and it does look similar to the pre-1924 stop on the computer at work.

[Hawkmoon]

I don't believe that at all. there are many examples of 1911's that do not have a grip safety. Star BM comes to mind.
The Star BM is not a 1911. It's a Star.

If you wish to use one of this gadgets on one of your pistols, by all means do so. The potential legal issue is if someone installs one of these on a self-defense pistol and then actually has to use the pistol for its intended purpose. Redundant or not, the grip safety is a "safety" device. The possibility is always there that a prosecutor or an attorney in a civil suit will attempt to portray the removal of a safety device as irresponsible. It's not an issue with a range pistol. If you wishg to use such a pistol for self-defense, you accept the risk of the possible consequence.

I don't understand in the slightest how this thingie can create a "faster presentation." Presentation means (to me), drawing the weapon and pointing it at the intended target. How does a one-piece backstrap result in my drawing and pointing faster?

[Hawkmoon]

I still don't see how a de-activated grip safety would come into play when a selfe defense type shooting happens.. If you meant to pull the trigger, then it maters not wheather the pistol has all of it's safety hoo-haws functioning... Since you would be activating(or de-activating) them anyway to fire the weapon....
It can come into play because you will be the defendant. As the defendant, you do not have any control over what the prosecutor or plaintiff's attorney can throw at you. All you can do is sit there, listen to them tell the jury how you irresponsibly deactivated a safety device on a lethal weapon ... and then try to explain to (with a nod to Tuner) "Soccermom Sue and Briefcase Bob" just exactly why removing a safety device that was REQUIRED by the United States Army is a good thing rather than a bad thing.

[OD*]

If you meant to pull the trigger,
That right there is the very argument they will use against you. They will claim you did not mean to fire, but by deactivating a factory installed safety devise you negligently rendered a safe weapon unsafe. It is the argument they used against the Miami officer that deliberately shot a BG, the prosecution tried to argue the officer negligently shot the BG because he had his S&W Model 10 cocked, which led them to go to DAO revolvers only (at that time).

[deadmarsh]

and then try to explain to (with a nod to Tuner) "Soccermom Sue and Briefcase Bob" just exactly why removing a safety device that was REQUIRED by the United States Army is a good thing rather than a bad thing.

Amen, Hawkmoon -- that about sums it up for me...


Dead

[auto45]

The good news is Detonics has a grip "safety" that's not a safety on one of their models. That should be legal, I would guess, for anyone not wishing to test the legal system if they are unlucky enough to be in such a position!!

I think a savy 1911 manufacturer, which is an oxymoron :D , might carve out a nice market with a series 80 style FP safety "pistol" without a grip "safety"...function over "form". Meaning it would be useful and really "safe". At least, as safe as a pistol can be.
Para should have tried it on their LDA system which is DAO, thumb safety, grip safety, series 80...wheww. Losing track of all the safeties. :confused:

Just talking...nothing will change. :)

[rjm713]

Hi,
Just received my March 07 issue of Guns magazine and there is a very good article on the original 1905 Colt ACP. Very interesting piece including a photo layout on disassembling the pistol. There was however on that early model only one safety--- the inertial firing pin. As for me I will check out the Novak "Answer" when it is actually in production and decide then. Ralph

[1911Tuner]

on the original 1905 Colt ACP. layout on disassembling the pistol....on that early model there was only one safety--- the inertial firing pin.

Yep...and in 1905, "He needed killin." was a valid defense...

[Ericthenorse]

OK... Them trying to convince a jurry that you didn't mean to shoot when you are standing there saying "Yup... I shot him..." Is what I call a last ditch desperate effort... I don't honestly believe that any judge or jury would buy that..... Come on back to the real world...... :D

Also, I don't understand why everyone seems to think that Mr. JMB is the last word in how a pistol should operate.. ( I know blasphemy...) Yes, he designed a great pistol, I have several, and I love them all.... But he did not believe they needed checkered front straps, but how many of us have those? Beavertails? non stock weight springs??? I can understand the legal issues involved in modification, but "because Mr. Browning said so, sounds to me kind of like a bible thumper to me....(I appologise to all of my religious friends for that one... Don't hate me....)

I plan to get one of these backstraps for one of my Gold Cups.. It is my competition only pistol, so I am not really worried about the ramifacations. I have no intention of mesing with my defense gun. Not because I am worried about legal stuff, but because I want it to be as safe as possible for me and my wife and kid... On that note... I would gladly serve all the time they want me to for a "bad shoot" If it saved the lafe of any member of my family.....

[OD*]

OK... Them trying to convince a jurry that you didn't mean to shoot when you are standing there saying "Yup... I shot him..." Is what I call a last ditch desperate effort... I don't honestly believe that any judge or jury would buy that..... Come on back to the real world......
Sorry you don't believe that's the real world, but it is.

[1911Tuner]

Also, I don't understand why everyone seems to think that Mr. JMB is the last word in how a pistol should operate..


*ahem* PLease don't blame poor John Moses for the grip safety. It was Georg Luger's idea. The US Army Ordnance Board liked it, and asked for it...on the 1907 military contract pistol.

The point is that it doesn't matter who designed it...or who put it there...or even whether or not we like it. It only matters that it was there when the pistol was built.
If it's NOT there when and if the pistol is involved in a shooting...accidental or intentional...you may find yourself squarely behind the proverbial 8-ball.

[gulfwarvet]

Yep...and in 1905, "He needed killin." was a valid defense...
:lm: :lm: :lm: :lm: :lm:

[OD*]

Johnny, do you have any idea when Luger first used a grip safety? The reason I ask is, JMB's biography claims his Model 1903 was the first pistol manufactured with the grip safety and I know the Vest Pocket baby Browning had it in 1905 (we have a nice one in the shop right now ;)).

[1911Tuner]

Johnny, do you have any idea when Luger first used a grip safety? The reason I ask is, JMB's biography claims his Model 1903 was the first pistol manufactured with the grip safety and I know the Vest Pocket baby Browning had it in 1905 (we have a nice one in the shop right now ;)).

About 1900, when Luger and Borchardt were both involved with it.
Browning's pistol may have been the first American design with the grip safety...but he got the idea from Georg and Hugo.

http://www.handgunsmag.com/featured_handguns/po8_luger/

[OD*]

Thanks Johnny, I didn't know Borchardt pistol had a grip safety.

[1911Tuner]

Thanks Johnny, I didn't know Borchardt pistol had a grip safety.

Not really sure, but I think only a few of the later prototypes had one. Interest in the pistol was a bit low, mainly because it was so unweildy...so development ceased. I remember reading that Georg Luger consulted with Hugo Borchardt on a few of the features of the gun...and the grip safety was one of those topics. The US military rejected the gun because of the functional problems and because of the light caliber...7.5 Swiss...but they liked the grip safety. The rest...so they say...is history.

Interestingly, the Luger's GS was dropped for the German Army when it was submitted in 1907, prior to being adopted in 1908..while the Americans asked for it at about the same time.

Like the 1911...The Luger's roots predate the P-08 designation by a good many years, and through several changes.

John Browning was a design genius of the first order...but all his ideas weren't entirely his own.

[OD*]

Not really sure, but I think only a few of the later prototypes had one.
OK, now that would fit in with how it was phrased in the book, ".....the latter (grip safety) appearing for the first time on a manufactured pistol".

[1911Tuner]

OK, now that would fit in with how it was phrased in the book, ".....the latter (grip safety) appearing for the first time on a manufactured pistol".

Well...If ya open the link that I posted and scroll down to the M-1900 Luger in 7.65 Swiss, you can see the grip safety. So...maybe the first appearance on an American-manufactured pistol...but it was on the Luger in 1900.

FWIW...I think the Luger is positively elegant.

[OD*]

Here's a better picture (wonder how much it sold for)

http://www.luger-genesis.com/detail_pisto.php?id=139&p=1

[OD*]

Just thought of something, I wonder if Georg & Hugo didn't "borrow" the grip safety idea from the Smith & Wesson Hammerless Safety (lemon squeezer) series of revolvers which were first approved by Daniel Wesson in 1886?

[1911Tuner]

Just thought of something, I wonder if Georg & Hugo didn't "borrow" the grip safety idea from the Smith & Wesson Hammerless Safety (lemon squeezer) series of revolvers which were first approved by Daniel Wesson in 1886?

Probably. Ain't no honor amongst thieves... :D