Will chime in No I would not. If I wanted to go that route an off the shelf so to speak HI Power.Waiting for the 1911 purists…
Will chime in No I would not. If I wanted to go that route an off the shelf so to speak HI Power.Waiting for the 1911 purists…
I’ve wondered about the arguments regarding modified carry guns for a while and I’m hoping there’s a resident lawyer that can explain the logic here. I don’t modify mine for reasons pertaining to reliability, but if I did, I don’t understand how it could be used against me. First, if I shoot somebody, it’s because I felt my life was in danger and I fired with the intent to eliminate the threat. Second, guns are designed to be deadly weapons. If I make my gun better at it’s intended purpose or modify it in a way that improves my ability to effectively defend myself, how is that unlawful in an otherwise lawful shooting?
I could imagine an anti-gun prosecutor telling the jury that you purposefully modified your gun to make it easier to kill someone, or painting you as reckless because you made it more likely that you gun could accidentally go off and kill innocent bystanders.
As we have seen recently with the Kyle Rittenhouse and George Zimmerman justified self defense shootings, if a Prosecutor wants to charge you he will, evidence and actual events be damned. Other places like Greenwood you take care of bidness and you are hailed as a hero. In a perfect world all the "system" would look at is the actual shooting and if it was justified or not. In case you haven't noticed, this world today is as far from perfect as can be.I’ve wondered about the arguments regarding modified carry guns for a while and I’m hoping there’s a resident lawyer that can explain the logic here. I don’t modify mine for reasons pertaining to reliability, but if I did, I don’t understand how it could be used against me. First, if I shoot somebody, it’s because I felt my life was in danger and I fired with the intent to eliminate the threat. Second, guns are designed to be deadly weapons. If I make my gun better at it’s intended purpose or modify it in a way that improves my ability to effectively defend myself, how is that unlawful in an otherwise lawful shooting?
As far as I know a 1905 is not a 1911No, the pistol had a grip safety from the Model 1907 onward, what the Calvary requested became the slide lock/thumb safety. Model 1907
View attachment 212577
Model 1910
View attachment 212578
Model 1911
View attachment 212580
John Moses Browning thought it needed one.
Who am I to argue?
Not a lawyer, but have had long discussions along these lines with mine, as well as a lifetime of reading about incidents and their legal aftermath in various magazines.
Yes sir, that's what I understood. We were discussing the Model 1911, which already utilized the grip safety. The Department of War requested a safety after the testing in 1905/06 as you stated, which became the Model 1907 U.S. Military Trials pistol. Browning first used what he called the "automatic grip safety" on his Model 1903, which he based the FN Model 1905 grip safety off of.As far as I know a 1905 is not a 1911
During the production run of the Colt Model 1905 Military, the Department Of Defense purchased 200 units for evaluation. There is no indication that the pistols made it to a field trial, but feedback from the US government prompted the development of a grip safety similar to the one found on the Fabrique Nationale Model 1905 6.35mm pocket pistols.
Calvary wanted the grip safety first, then they wanted the manual safety. When JMB originally submitted the 1905 for testing it had neither. I will say the hammer safety is interesting.That was the Cavalry if memory serves
Old school Delta Force rig
No.Question for the group: if a 1911 manufacturer offered a 1911 without the grip safety, would you buy one? Lugers were available with or without a grip safety. What if 1911s were similar. Would you choose one with or without the grip safety?
I think this is just general prudence. The gun is delivered as a package, not as a set of pieces you stick together. The original design included the grip safety and the _overall safety and reliability_ of the gun was characterized with all its pieces in correct working order. The manufacturer thought over the engineering, built prototypes, developed a complete understanding of how the gun functioned under different conditions, and was satisfied that it met requirements. Was it over-engineering to include the grip safety? Maybe. But the "right" path to address that is with a new design that goes through the same set of careful thought processes, prototyping and testing, so that the behavior of the new design is fully understood. Simply disabling part of a machine on an ad hoc basis doesn't give that same level of confidence that you know exactly how it will behave across the whole range of conditions where it is expected to be used.It’s good to see though, that as a group, we take safety seriously enough that the very idea of disabling a safety, even if possibly an unneeded one, to be wrong.
Except the magazines are full of BS. Ayoob and others do this to fill pages between the advertisements.
Only problem is that there are several who have studied this including a former federal judge if memory serves, and in the entire history of American jurisprudence there has never been an individual convicted of an otherwise good shoot because of the ammunition he used or the modifications he made to his firearm.
Now if the gun writers were being honest they would have included this fact in their article. Of course they don’t because it would make the article pointless and pointless doesn’t generate advertising revenue.