[David Armstrong]

I just can't imagine them describing that as efficent

Perhaps we could describe something as efficient if it has worked successfully in a variety of situations and in a variety of places that were quite dangerous without any noticable problems. Becaue theat is what we have with chamber empty carry---a technique that has been used most of the time and in most of the world with a long record of success. To me that is the most telling point of the discussion. One can discuss all sorts of imagined problems, but the harsh light of historical reality says that it is a technique that works, and works well.

Not to be confrontational, but what proof do you have that 1. It was developed from combat experience and 2. that it actually worked?

One should look into the history of gunfighting and how the techniques were developed to find that proof. Suffice it to say that the chamber empty carry was developed in a place that was considered one of the most dangerous cities in the world at the time, and was refined during World War II, and finally popularized by the IDF.

It is an inferior technique.

No. It is a different technique. Whether it is inferior or superior depends on the situation and your specific concerns.

Take two people of equal ability (or time the same person using both techniques) and the person carrying in condition 1 will be able to put lead on the target faster.

Well, there is a lot more to it than just that, however. First, the assumption is questionable on its face, as the chamber movement can be incorporated into the full draw stroke. Then there is the issue of accuracy to consider. Then of course there is the important "if there is a difference does it matter" question. Few DGU incidents are resolved based on tiny fractions of a second. Finally, as mentioned before, putting lead on the target is only one part of the CCW experience, and the other parts can be just as important, maybe more so, depending on the person and the situation.