Jeffro Posted March 29, 2003 Share Posted March 29, 2003 I am a left-handed shooter, and of course, always utilize ambidextrous safties on all my 1911 type formats. In years past, I had always gravitated to the Armond Swenson ambidextrous safties. Recent years found me using Ed Brown models. Only once did I experience "weakness" in the safety, as the wood on the grip wore from the constant "torqueing" of my always using the safety on the right side of the firearm (being left-handed, of course I would). I switched a few of my 1911s to the "King Gunworks" ambi safety, which doesn't have the "tang" under the right grip panel, but instead utilizes a "head" which slides in a groove on the right side safety. I wonder if this setup wears better, worse, or no differently from the "Swenson-type" with the tang under the grip panel. Anyone use the King-type for a long period, and what do you think of it? Thanks for any info. Jeffro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkgsmith Posted March 29, 2003 Share Posted March 29, 2003 Jeffro, I've put several of the Kings safeties on customer guns. Matter of fact it is the one I recommend for my "lefties." I have found that the standard design of the traditional ambi's tend to weaken after being abused by lefties. The kings safety is easy to fit, and gives a nice crisp click when activated with the left hand. Take your time fitting it and polish the contact points and you'll be happy with the results. If I remember correctly the slot in the back needs to be slightly milled out when used on an STI frame. It's easy to do and you'll figure it out when you see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffro Posted March 29, 2003 Author Share Posted March 29, 2003 I have found that the standard design of the traditional ambi's tend to weaken after being abused by lefties. RKQSMITH, I appreciate your reply. I am curious as to what you call abuse of the ambi safeties. I have used them since Armond Swenson brought them out, and while I have used them a lot, I don't really know what constitutes abuse of the part. After a substantial amount of use (not as a "weak hand safety", but as a primary lever since I am a lefty), some of them seem to get more play, and some "wear" the portion of the grip panel that holds them in place, allowing them to "torque" or twist slightly. This scares me in a defense gun. As I stated in my previous post, I have installed the Kings units in a few of my 1911s, and they seem to stay tighter, but you answered my question for me. However, I would be interested in what constitutes abuse of the part so I may avoid it in the future. Thank you again for your time and comments. Jeffro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul B Posted March 29, 2003 Share Posted March 29, 2003 Have used Kings safeties on all my guns since I started shooting Paras. I take off the grip panels and just put skateboard tape on the para frame so the Kings is the way to go. They are more positive and I can't seem to wear them out even after thousands and thousands of cycles. I'm not a southpaw but the basic design seems stronger to me for using the right side since it does not depend so much on the tongue and slot connection in the center for stability. I did have one break the pad off on the left side once, but Kings replaced it for free (sometimes I tend to kind of crush the safety off when I'm in a hurry - which I always am). Currently have them on 5 guns and very happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffro Posted March 29, 2003 Author Share Posted March 29, 2003 PAUL, Thanks for the reply. Being a lefty, strength of the safety lever with thousands of left-handed operations is of great concern, as you might imagine. I perceive (as it appears you also do) that the Kings unit has greater support for the "tongue-in-grove" union. Thanks again for the input. Jeffro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tightloop Posted March 29, 2003 Share Posted March 29, 2003 What were you doing to the others that they got loose. I have many hundred thousands of rounds through guns with the traditional type of ambi, and never had any problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffro Posted March 30, 2003 Author Share Posted March 30, 2003 Tightloop, I do nothing which I would consider out of the ordinary. Do you shoot left-handed, so that 99% of the time you are activating/deactivating the safety with the RIGHT SIDE lever? Mine don't get horribly loose, they just seem to (after lots of years and use), feel like they get a slight bit "torqued" or slightly "cocked", as though the constant pressure on the RIGHT control causes it to pick up more tolerance on that side of the tongue-and-groove union. Jeffro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Thomas Posted March 30, 2003 Share Posted March 30, 2003 I use the King's ambis on all my 1911s. Really, it's the only ambi safety I'd consider. I was scared away from the traditional sort of ambi by seeing several people, whose guns were fitted with these safeties, at matches go to pick the gun up off a table start, and have the off-side safety lever fall out of the gun. Thank you, no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffro Posted March 30, 2003 Author Share Posted March 30, 2003 Duane, Thanks for the info. I haven't had any fall out, but a few started feeling "different", so I switched them out to the Kings Gunworks ones. I figured I would wait and see how the Kings units held up over time before switching them on a bunch of my 1911s. I just like the added support that seems to be inherant in the design of the Kings units. Most of the feedback I received said that I was crazy for worrying about it, but most of those were right-handed shooters who rarely used the right side of the safety. Most only practiced using it for "weak-hand" firing on occasion. Because the actual "nub" that engages is on the left side of the firearm, there is obviously more pressure on the tongue-and-groove union when it is almost always engaged/disengaged from the right side of the frame (in my opinion). Doesn't that seem logical to you, or am I completely off base? If you think I am crazy, please tell me GENTLY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tightloop Posted March 30, 2003 Share Posted March 30, 2003 Jeffro Nope, I'm a righty, so I don't / didn't give my ambi's the workout from the right side you do. I always looked at my pistol kind of like a truck, it will eventually need some preventative maintenance, so when I detected anything "not quite right" it was over to the 'smith to take a look. Maybe that is why I did not notice anything with mine. As many pistols as Duane looks at, he should know a good one when he tests it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Thomas Posted March 31, 2003 Share Posted March 31, 2003 Jeffro, No, you're not crazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffro Posted March 31, 2003 Author Share Posted March 31, 2003 Jeffro,No, you're not crazy. Duane, I am going to save your last post and show it to my wife as PROOF that I am not crazy............ Duane SAID so!!!! Jeffro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Thomas Posted March 31, 2003 Share Posted March 31, 2003 I'm smiling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shred Posted March 31, 2003 Share Posted March 31, 2003 As a lefty that breaks safeties on a somewhat regular basis (every year or two), the weak point of the Swenson-style design is that all the torque goes through the tounge-in-groove joint. Of course, I think the Kings does that too, but it may have a better stop mechanism. Most of mine break on the left (as seen from the back) side where the pin joins the plate and not actually at the mechnical joint. Lightening up the operating force is an option if you don't mind an easy-to-remove safety. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffro Posted April 1, 2003 Author Share Posted April 1, 2003 Lightening up the operating force is an option if you don't mind an easy-to-remove safety. Shred, Problem is that I am a little paranoid about "lightening up the safety". I really like that distinct "click" on and off. But do appreciate the feedback. At least I know I am not the only one with this concern and problem. Thanks for the info. Jeffro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sledgee Posted April 1, 2003 Share Posted April 1, 2003 Jeffro- You're definitely not crazy, at least when it comes to ambi safeties. I am also a lefty, and have found the King's to be the best. Also, in my experience, this is one area where the superiority of tool steel over stainless really shows up. The blue ones stay tight longer, and the King's hold up better than others, but after 20 years I just got tired of fooling with them. They all loosen up, and that bothers me. That little joint in the middle just sucks. It's not up to its job, and never will be. For rightys, the right-side thumbpiece is just along for a no-load ride, and that's why they don't see the problem. We leftys operate the safety through that joint. I developed a taste for slim grips a few years ago, so now have no place for the safety to stop, which exacerbates the problem. I considered drilling and tapping the frame for a stud to support the safety, but instead chose a simpler, but more radical solution about a year ago. I use a standard GI righthander's safety, cut most of the thumb pad off, deepen the detent in the fire position, and just never use the thumb safety at all. I have a functioning grip safety, so I consider this setup at least as safe as any Glock. It seemed like a grenade with a pulled pin at first, but I've grown completely comfortable with it. I can't see myself ever going back. Joe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffro Posted April 1, 2003 Author Share Posted April 1, 2003 Joe/Sledgee, I agree with all that you said..... 'till I got to your "ultimate solution". If it works for you...... great. HOWEVER, that would scare the begeebees out of me!!!!! Like I said in my earlier post, I really like that distinct "click" when the safety is engaged and disengaged. Carrying without the thumb safety would drive me crazy. I would be a constant mess!!! (and I am definitely not considered "faint of heart" by those who know me!!) Please know that I am not condemning you for doing it. If you are comfortable with it, and you don't have accidents, I am glad you found a solution that works for you. Thanks for the post. I do appreciate it. PLEASE be careful. Jeffro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurtm Posted April 1, 2003 Share Posted April 1, 2003 Jeffro: Joes solution is not far off from a 1915 calvalry solution to the safety problem. This manual states that IN COMBAT or NEAR COMBAT ( I love that term) the thumb safety should be OFF at all times to preclude the accidental slip PAST the safety thus endangering the rider and mount!!! I do know Joe carries EVERY day and is more than concerned with safety, both his and others. I kind of like his solution! When I was forced to carry a SIG 220, I carried it cocked and UNLOCKED!!!! I hate the crunch and tick of DA autos!! As has been stated well befor my time, a straight finger is the BEST safety of all!!! Cudos Joe!!!! KURT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Singlestack Posted April 1, 2003 Share Posted April 1, 2003 I would not let you start without the safety on. Some might try and DQ you for holstering that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sledgee Posted April 1, 2003 Share Posted April 1, 2003 Jeffro- I understand your concern. I felt it too. When I analyzed it, though, I decided it was rooted in fear of a cocked hammer, which is largely irrational. Glockers blithely carry, handle and re-holster their 3.5# safetyless pistols, and no one bats an eye, much less dives for cover. As I said, I don't disable my grip safeties, so I consider my pistol in Condition 0 to be safer than a Glock with a chambered round. If I'm missing something (which is entirely possible), please help me out. Kurt- Thanks for the support. Singlestack- Why? (Please read the above regarding Glocks). And thanks for the warning. If I'm ever at a match and you're RO'ing, I'll just ask politely for another RO. I have a design in my head which I think would produce a satisfactory ambi safety, but not the machines nor skill to make it. It would have a solid pin which protruded about .250" from the right side of the frame. The protruding end would be milled into either a hex or Torx configuration. A lever, with a press-fit female matching hole milled through it, would be held on by a Swenson-style under-grip finger. I think it would hold up to extended, hard, left-handed use. Joe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurtm Posted April 1, 2003 Share Posted April 1, 2003 Singlestack: The match I was talking about starts with a visual prompt such as a knife or gun being displayed in your direction along with audio prompts such as I'm gonna kill you or give me your car!........etc. In this type of match, I would hope you would help instead of just triing to time the whole affair and then try to D.Q. me after the smoke cleared! The clue to my reply would have been found in the "Joe carries EVERY day", thus negating the timer /match/DQ portion of the subject. The only way to stop me from starting without the safety on would be to physically restrain my hand as it went for the pistol and at the same time operating the safety device for me. This sounds like way to much work in the face of adversity! Of course in a match environment this may not be the case....but how many guys have deactivated grip safeties?, firing pin safeties? are we to DQ them as well? I know of 5 full race Glocks that have the firing pin safety removed and the little safety in the trigger filed off at the top so as to deactivate it. Are they to be DQed? At the begining of every match will we have an armorer disassemble every gun to inspect it,s safeties?? In the long run Joe has at least two safeties left and as they say "that aint so bad". KURT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffro Posted April 1, 2003 Author Share Posted April 1, 2003 I have a design in my head which I think would produce a satisfactory ambi safety, but not the machines nor skill to make it. It would have a solid pin which protruded about .250" from the right side of the frame. The protruding end would be milled into either a hex or Torx configuration. A lever, with a press-fit female matching hole milled through it, would be held on by a Swenson-style under-grip finger. I think it would hold up to extended, hard, left-handed use. JOE, YOU HAVE BEEN READING MY MAIL!! I told my gunsmith of MY idea which is amazingly similar to yours, with a different form of attaching the right side of the unit. Like yours, it would be a SOLID pin through the frame, partrude through the right side with a hex or square end, and have the right side lever have a female recess to accept that partrusion, with a small hex head screw on the underside to secure it to the shaft and not have the "tang" under the right grip panel (unless for additional support). I think it would be a dandy solution. BRIAN..... are you listening to this?? It could be the "Enos Ambi Safety", and sold (initially) through your online store, and later by Brownell's, Midway, etc.!!!!!!!!!!! I think it would be a grand idea, and you could do it like Wilson and all the others do............ have a zillion of them made up by someone else with your name stamped on them!!!! I am NOT JOKING. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Singlestack Posted April 1, 2003 Share Posted April 1, 2003 Singlestack- Why? (Please read the above regarding Glocks). And thanks for the warning. If I'm ever at a match and you're RO'ing, I'll just ask politely for another RO. The grip safety on a 1911/2011 is considered a secondary safety as is the firing pin safety on a Glock. Rule 5.2.5 states the primary safety must be completely functional. Rule 8.1.2 states the safety must be engaged to be considered to be in the Ready Position to start a course of fire. Rule 10.3.13.1 states that it is a DQ for holstering a single action pistol with the safety not applied. At least thats how I understand it. As far as Glocks being "safetyless pistols", lets agree to dissagree. Kurt, Believe me, I would help. I missed your intent and thought we were talking competition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sledgee Posted April 2, 2003 Share Posted April 2, 2003 WOW! That's really impressive! Are you by any chance a lawyer? What is the primary safety on a Glock? How do you check it for function and engagement? (I assume you do that for each Glock shooter.) Do you think that my pistol is less safe than a Glock? If so, why? Could you address the questions Kurt asked in the second paragraph of his post? Thanks. Joe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurtm Posted April 2, 2003 Share Posted April 2, 2003 Singlestack: I posted most of that in jest! I know you would help! On the other hand I know of at least one open hose gun ( note the jelous tone) that the safety was rigged not to work. It goes up and down just fine and even klicks, but the sear block has been ground away and the top portion has been ground away so it doesn't catch the cut in the slide! That way if its ever missed or knocked back on durring a stage it just keeps on ticking. Hmmm KURT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts