Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 10/26/2010 5:21:49 PM EDT
Pretty much impossible for the average tinker, I suspect? Some welding and subsequent grinding & extensive shaping, I assume?
Link Posted: 10/26/2010 6:13:53 PM EDT
Why? It's there for a reason. The design as such has been working well for 100 years.
Link Posted: 10/26/2010 6:41:12 PM EDT
I was under the impression that the beavertail was a relatively modern development, at least post-WWII. I would like a standard grip safety on a particular gun, for a more traditional look. I probably will not be interested in what I expect to be an expensive modification, though.
Link Posted: 10/26/2010 7:18:56 PM EDT
Just drill and pin it in the off/unsafe position. You could even super glue it there.

But, why not just have a smith tune it so your grip reliably de-activates it? If your a tinker you could do it yourself for sure.
Link Posted: 10/26/2010 7:27:52 PM EDT
You don't understand: I don't want to de-activate the grip safety, I want to replace the beavertail with a standard grip safety. I am assuming thiswould result in gaps and poor fitting, and a shoddy appearance.
Link Posted: 10/26/2010 7:42:24 PM EDT
Aside from the giant step backward in ergonomics, it would look like this:

<ignore the obviously-not-a-1911 top end>

Link Posted: 10/26/2010 8:00:58 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/26/2010 8:01:20 PM EDT by Derek45]
Originally Posted By ken_mays:
Aside from the giant step backward in ergonomics, it would look like this:

<ignore the obviously-not-a-1911 top end>

http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/ff35/kemays/mech-tech.jpg


+1000

what kind of 1911 is it ? ?

It should not be too hard, but the grip safety needs to be hand fitted to the trigger bow for proper operation.
usually NOT a drop in part.



see that tang ?
that needs to be hand fitted to the rear of the trigger bow.

there's also usually some fitting on the bottom were it fits the MSH

Link Posted: 10/26/2010 9:44:39 PM EDT
I would think you would have weld the frame back up then recut it for a GI safety. Usually its the other way around, take out the GI and put in the beavertail. Then you are just cutting the frame for the beavertail. Mark
Link Posted: 10/26/2010 11:39:46 PM EDT
It would likely be more economical to buy a mil spec 1911...then you have the safety you desire and a new pistol....win-win if I ever heard of one!!
Link Posted: 10/27/2010 6:23:05 AM EDT
Functionally, you'd just have to make sure it has the proper orientation with the trigger bow and make sure it will fit on the bottom.

The frame tangs will most likely have finish rubbed off from the beavertail, but it should be a relatively simple installation.

Don't forget that there's a good chance that it will have to be modified to work with a commander-style hammer too.

It's just not going to look perfect.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
Link Posted: 10/27/2010 7:00:41 AM EDT


Link Posted: 10/28/2010 11:20:33 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Otterstedt:
Pretty much impossible for the average tinker, I suspect? Some welding and subsequent grinding & extensive shaping, I assume?


It depends. Beavertails come in a number of different radius cuts, and the tangs are often blended.

If you are trying to restore something, it will depend on whether the person who installed the beavertail did any cutting on the frame, if you are replacing a factory beavertail with a factory GI style unit it will depend on the make/model of the gun.
Link Posted: 10/29/2010 9:01:44 AM EDT
Link Posted: 10/29/2010 12:48:34 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/29/2010 12:52:26 PM EDT by Otterstedt]
Originally Posted By SGB:

Originally Posted By msmedley:
I would think you would have weld the frame back up then recut it for a GI safety.

............... WTF


Unless you intend to replace your current ring hammer with a spur hammer you'll need to use a commander standard grip safety, no frame modification required.

Fitting the grip safety is simple and and job easily done by the home hobbyist.


This is what I was thinking. When I look at the underside of the beavertail/tangs and compare it to my Springer GI, it appears as though there
is material removed from the tangs such that the space between them is greater. Is that not the case?

BACKGROUND:
The gun in question is a P14. It is an early PX model, and I have never liked it because the bottom part of the grip safety is too thick, and
interferes with my grip. It is not the frame size, because I have an older P14 with a different style of grip safety, which fits me fine. The
safety, when depressed, sticks out noticeably further than the other two guns do when NOT depressed.

Initially I was either going to remove material from the grip safety, or to replace it with another beavertail. But, I started thinking about making
the gun more GI in appearance, as I like that simplistic look (I am strictly a recreational shooter, so...). I think this may be too much trouble,
as I would want to remove the Parakote and parkerize, replace the trigger, plus do something about the front and rear serrations, etc. I think
I will end up doing what I had originally intended.
Link Posted: 10/29/2010 1:58:49 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/29/2010 2:00:29 PM EDT by hooks]
If you look at Pistolwretch's post there's your answer grasshopper....


one other thought is this trick mod from Jason Burton...

Link Posted: 10/29/2010 2:12:05 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Otterstedt:
Originally Posted By SGB:

Originally Posted By msmedley:
I would think you would have weld the frame back up then recut it for a GI safety.

............... WTF


Unless you intend to replace your current ring hammer with a spur hammer you'll need to use a commander standard grip safety, no frame modification required.

Fitting the grip safety is simple and and job easily done by the home hobbyist.


This is what I was thinking. When I look at the underside of the beavertail/tangs and compare it to my Springer GI, it appears as though there
is material removed from the tangs such that the space between them is greater. Is that not the case?

BACKGROUND:
The gun in question is a P14. It is an early PX model, and I have never liked it because the bottom part of the grip safety is too thick, and
interferes with my grip. It is not the frame size, because I have an older P14 with a different style of grip safety, which fits me fine. The
safety, when depressed, sticks out noticeably further than the other two guns do when NOT depressed.

Initially I was either going to remove material from the grip safety, or to replace it with another beavertail. But, I started thinking about making
the gun more GI in appearance, as I like that simplistic look (I am strictly a recreational shooter, so...). I think this may be too much trouble,
as I would want to remove the Parakote and parkerize, replace the trigger, plus do something about the front and rear serrations, etc. I think
I will end up doing what I had originally intended.


I'd say just try one on and see how it looks. They aren't that expensive; if you don't like it you aren't out that much money. You can likely get a feel for what it's going to look like without much if any fitting.

Yes there may be a slight difference when viewed in comparison to your GI model, but you probably won't notice it except when looking at them side by side.
Link Posted: 10/29/2010 6:28:05 PM EDT
Safely make sure its dead first.

Link Posted: 10/29/2010 11:00:26 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Otterstedt:

This is what I was thinking. When I look at the underside of the beavertail/tangs and compare it to my Springer GI, it appears as though there
is material removed from the tangs such that the space between them is greater. Is that not the case?

BACKGROUND:
The gun in question is a P14. It is an early PX model, and I have never liked it because the bottom part of the grip safety is too thick, and
interferes with my grip.


First, you can't compare it to a Springfield GI because Springfield uses a semi-proprietary .220 radius on their GI and Mil-spec models (and the old "pre-loaded" models)
I don't know what Para uses. Anyone??? I'd guess they use a Wilson blended radius cut, in which case a standard .250" radius Commander/Officer safety should work just fine, though it may not look the best. If Para uses a standard .250 radius like Colt, then the safety will drop in just fine and you will only have to do minor fitting on the engagement surfaces.
Link Posted: 10/30/2010 5:30:41 AM EDT


Pistolwrench,
I love that Pic, even more I would love to see the screw up that caused it! Obviously a botched beavertail fit but I'm dying to see what it looked like before the cut! Come on show us some of that precision kitchen table 1911 gunsmith work!
Link Posted: 10/30/2010 7:10:21 AM EDT
Originally Posted By NVGdude:
Originally Posted By Otterstedt:

This is what I was thinking. When I look at the underside of the beavertail/tangs and compare it to my Springer GI, it appears as though there
is material removed from the tangs such that the space between them is greater. Is that not the case?

BACKGROUND:
The gun in question is a P14. It is an early PX model, and I have never liked it because the bottom part of the grip safety is too thick, and
interferes with my grip.


First, you can't compare it to a Springfield GI because Springfield uses a semi-proprietary .220 radius on their GI and Mil-spec models (and the old "pre-loaded" models)
I don't know what Para uses. Anyone??? I'd guess they use a Wilson blended radius cut, in which case a standard .250" radius Commander/Officer safety should work just fine, though it may not look the best. If Para uses a standard .250 radius like Colt, then the safety will drop in just fine and you will only have to do minor fitting on the engagement surfaces.


I must not have a proper understanding of the meaning of the term "radius" in this context. I thought "radius" had to do with the
rounding of the tangs (the part which has been removed in Pistolwretch's photo above) to allow the beavertail to move freely with
minimal gaps. The tangs on my Springfield GI are not radiused at all- they come to a sort of rough point.

If what I said is correct, I don't see why radius would be relevant to installing a standard grip safety.
Link Posted: 10/30/2010 7:13:29 AM EDT
Originally Posted By rod727:


Pistolwrench,
I love that Pic, even more I would love to see the screw up that caused it! Obviously a botched beavertail fit but I'm dying to see what it looked like before the cut! Come on show us some of that precision kitchen table 1911 gunsmith work!


http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=5&f=49&t=102319&light=
Link Posted: 10/30/2010 7:36:00 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Otterstedt:

I must not have a proper understanding of the meaning of the term "radius" in this context. I thought "radius" had to do with the
rounding of the tangs (the part which has been removed in Pistolwretch's photo above) to allow the beavertail to move freely with
minimal gaps. The tangs on my Springfield GI are not radiused at all- they come to a sort of rough point.

If what I said is correct, I don't see why radius would be relevant to installing a standard grip safety.


You're correct. The radius refers to the rounding of the rear of the tangs. There is no material removed from the "inside" of the tangs, to widen the gap. So a GI grip safety will work, it will just look a bit odd... and assuming your hammer is compatible.
Link Posted: 10/30/2010 7:29:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Otterstedt:
I must not have a proper understanding of the meaning of the term "radius" in this context. I thought "radius" had to do with the
rounding of the tangs (the part which has been removed in Pistolwretch's photo above) to allow the beavertail to move freely with
minimal gaps. The tangs on my Springfield GI are not radiused at all- they come to a sort of rough point.

If what I said is correct, I don't see why radius would be relevant to installing a standard grip safety.


You're getting it. I think some of these guys are thinking you're trying to swap beavertail grip safeties around.

Putting a GI grip safety on should be relatively simple. The only difference will be that your frame tangs won't come to a point like the GI, yours will be rounded because they were already radiused for a beavertail.

Other than athstetics, and hammer-to-grip safety interference, you should be OK. If you have a Commander (also called ring or slotted) hammer, you will either have to have a spur hammer fit, or you will need to have the GI grip safety shaved down to clear it.

Hope this helped a little.
Top Top