More one chamber empty carry

[G-man 26]

I have been around firearms my entire life. I have ALOT of range time on a 1911, and have no problem carrying it in condition one. I use a clip draw on my g-26, and carry it without one in the tube. I guess I'm a F-ing idiot? I don't feel safe carrying a glock with one in the chamber and no holster to protect the trigger. I do have ALOT of range time on this gun as well and I can draw, rack, and fire almost as fast as I can draw and fire it with the round already in the tube.

I understand that it slows me down, and I am willing to live with this. On that note, I have noticed something since coming to this decision. The guys that carry sub-compact 1911's in condition one (or whatever in DEFCON 1) go about their day with the same attitude that I had when I started to carry. "I am the master of the world around me, because I have a gun." I feel more like a scared rabbit without one in the chamber, and act more like I have read more than a few on this forum have said that I should act. My SA is better, and my attitude is as well. I know that I am not going to win the wild west quick draw (should have known this all along) and I keep my head-swivel a little better lubed because of it.

I guess I will never have lunch with Farnum, too bad. I will still listen to his opinion on this, or any subject, but I don't have to agree with him.

[G-man 26]

RE: "what if I don't have both hands to chamber a round because my hand/arm is injured?"

The footwear you currently have on your feet is designed for traction. Firmly place the sights of your pistol on the bottom of your shoe and chamber a round. This works great with little practice, but if you are so damaged due to injuries that recently inflicted that you have resort to this, having one in the chamber wasn't likely to help you either.

[TailGator]

I carry a round chambered, but I can't endorse the vehemence that some express on the subject. There are carry methods, like SmartCarry, belly bands, and underwear with built-in holster pockets, that require two hands and just as much time to bring a handgun into action as does racking a slide, but they don't get the derision and hyperbole that carrying with an empty chamber receives. If someone is at the place on the learning curve where they feel more safe carrying with an empty chamber, give them a chance to learn and increase their comfort level without reaming them out. It won't be permanent. No one here was born with a gun in their hand, with or without a round chambered. Firearm proficiency is learned, not a congenital trait.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I've eaten dinner with Farnam several times. Pleasant conversation.

Also, I've taken a course on injured shooters drills with one hand usable. I conveniently broke my wrist before the course and took it in a cast that encased my dominant hand.

But, I still carried my Glock and it was chambered.

[DogoDon]

Don't know how much I can contribute that hasn't already been said (and forgive me if this point has been made), but I can see one great disadvantage to carrying with an empty chamber, apart from merely slowing you down:

If your gun is going to fail to feed the round into the chamber, it's far better for that to happen before you holster the gun, than for it to happen as you attempt to draw, chamber, aim, and fire. Ask that poor jewelry store fellow! An FTF would be disastrous in the heat of a self-defense situation.

But I also agree with post #49: An inexperienced gun handler probably should carry with the chamber empty until he/she gains sufficient proficiency to ensure no ND.

DogoDon

[BlueTrain]

I think one of the facets of this particular controversy is that it somehow gets mixed up with that other controversy, that of carrying a single action automatic cocked and locked. Of course, we are referring here chiefly to that ultra modern automatic, the 1911. At any rate, people quickly take sides, with the experts on one side and, on the other side, well, you give them a name. And of course, the other aspect of the controversy is the notion that the fast draw or quick draw (there used to be a difference, don't know if there still is) is one of the central skills necessary before even attempting to carry a handgun. I'm not so sure that's true but others have no doubt about the matter. Naturally, it follows that those who have no doubt also have no doubt about their own abilities. I have no doubts about my own abilities but I can't say my abilities are anything to brag about.

[xjmox14x]

I guess we're all going to pass on an interesting question.

I wonder what the stats are regarding people who have been killed/severely injured by negligent discharges vs. people who have been kill/severely injured because they took an extra second to chamber a round and that second would've mattered. The bottom line is negligent discharges will happen. Period. End of discussion. Almost 100 people are killed every year by toilets and vending machines... do you really think negligent discharges will disappear?

[GUNSITE]

Many trainers have strong opinions with personal preferences/technics. Some people go through life with an "ON PATROL" readiness attitude with great intensity. People who train, do it for a living, are lock into this intensity because its their livelihood, some more than others.

I don't think anyone can show stats for civilian conceal carries (public) that have died/injured because of their lack of a quick draw. Anyone who has training knows that standing fast and drawing your weapon can get you killed, moving... will increase your survival rate.

Remember the courthouse shooting, the guy who tried to kill the lawyer outside the courthouse, that lawyer didn't survive because he had a fast draw, matter a fact he didn't even have a weapon, he survived because of moving and covering... (and the MECHANICS of a poor shooter)

I've never been intimidate by how i carry (personally), my training gives me the confidence that if i were to carry an unloaded weapon with the magazine in my pocket it will not intimidate me. The lack of training can put a person at a disadvantage, not understanding how to tactically react in situations can get you killed, and thinking they're ready because they carry a chambered weapon is what i call a FALSE POSITIVE.

I have more of a problem with the way people carry (holster position/type) there weapon than if they a carry non-chambered or chambered when they speak about being ready. Today everything i train (personally) is within 20 feet, moving, drawing, positions, and reacting. If you want to be ready, be ready within 20 feet... the RED ZONE.

FOR THE RECORD... I don't advocate carrying a NON-CHAMBERED weapon, its not for everyone.

[LordofWar]

This debate will evolve into something never ending.

It's because people got sick & tired of 9mm vs .45 catfights.

[ClayInTx]

It seems to me that most of the debate in this thread is not because of carrying or not carrying one in the chamber; it seems more to be caused by Farnam’s pontifical attitude in what he said and the way he said it.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Yep, I think Lord and Clay have it nailed.

Same old arguments and the new thing is some people don't like Farnam's prose.

Is that it?

Since I'm not the mod for this forum, I'll let my colleagues decide if more can be beaten out of this dead horse.

I think I will rack my shotgun and think about my 45 vs. my 9. Or maybe I should think about my shotgun vs. my AR. Or should I carry my mouse gun?

[w_houle]

It seems to me that most of the debate in this thread is not because of carrying or not carrying one in the chamber; it seems more to be caused by Farnam’s pontifical attitude in what he said and the way he said it.

I agree and actually find myself more emotionally advocating something that I don't really care about and actually isn't a personal preference of mine.

[LordofWar]

A tactical discussion would be something on the lines of speed loading, ingenious, fast and effective ways to rack a slide or clearing a FTF/FTE with your teeth. :P (Just in case you have one operational arm).

[orionengnr]

This discussion takes place at least several times per month, perhaps several times per week. I don't always read them and I don't regularly participate, for any number of reasons.

Based on readings elsewhere, the Israelis no longer use chamber-empty carry since going to more modern weapons.

So we are arguing a technique that was less than desireable to begin with, borne of necessity (non-commonality of pistols issued) and which is no longer used by those that made it work originally. Does that strike anyone as ironic?

John Farnham has more credibilty than most, and whether or not I would have chosen the same words, I understand his frustration. Someone who does not (in my opinion) pursue a logical argument may or may not be logical (in my opinion). At a certain point I may get tired of arguing with that person.

For what it's worth, I'll come down on Fanham's side of the argument. Let me ask you this: if I told you that I drive without a seat belt daily, and if I ever see an accident coming, I'll just put on my seat belt before impact....would you call that ridiculous?

[michael t]

This part of article from Force Science NewsForce Science News #62: New Findings from FBI About Cop Attackers & Their Weapons
Force Science News #62
December 28, 2006

Remember these are police and have a round in chamber and their still behind the curve
Chamber a round.


NEW FINDINGS FROM FBI ABOUT COP ATTACKERS & THEIR WEAPONS

More often than the officers they attacked, offenders delivered at least some rounds on target in their encounters. Nearly 70% of assailants were successful in that regard with handguns, compared to about 40% of the victim officers, the study found. (Efforts of offenders and officers to get on target were considered successful if any rounds struck, regardless of the number fired.)

Davis speculated that the offenders might have had an advantage because in all but 3 cases they fired first, usually catching the officer by surprise. Indeed, the report points out, “10 of the total victim officers had been wounded [and thus impaired] before they returned gunfire at their attackers.”


“They practice getting the gun out and using it,” Davis explained. “They shoot for effect.” Or as one of the offenders put it: “[W]e’re not working with no marksmanship….We just putting it in your direction, you know….It don’t matter…as long as it’s gonna hit you…if it’s up at your head or your chest, down at your legs, whatever….Once I squeeze and you fall, then…if I want to execute you, then I could go from there.”

[Deaf Smith]

Let me ask you this: if I told you that I drive without a seat belt daily, and if I ever see an accident coming, I'll just put on my seat belt before impact....would you call that ridiculous?

Good way to put it.

I can understand how Farnam feels. He is a professional gun packer and trains alot of those types and to he would not want for a backup someone who is so afraid of their gun they carry it half way loaded.

And I feel if one is so afraid of that then carry a revolver. You never really hear of those packing revolvers carrying the chamber under the hammer empty unless it's an old SSA style gun or cheap old revolver.

Speaking of that, I'll start a thread in the revolver forum and ask that very question. Whom over there packs a revolver with no round under the hammer.

[Capt. Charlie]

Originally Posted by Glenn

Same old arguments and the new thing is some people don't like Farnam's prose.

Is that it?

Since I'm not the mod for this forum, I'll let my colleagues decide if more can be beaten out of this dead horse.

* (Swinging club) Whack! whack! whack! *

Nope, the old nag's still dead .

Closed.