In what condition is ur CCW carried?

[mrt949]

All mine are D.A.O.
HK P2000SK LEM
SEECAMP
RUGER SP101
BERETTA 21A.

[manta49]

Two examples of negligence. Had the parents been responsible, and maintained proper control of their firearm it would have made no difference if they had a round in the chamber or not.
Had they on the other hand needed the gun to defend themselves, or their family that may very well have not been able to chamber a round in time to make it anything more than a heavy object.

Are you saying a two year old racked the slide and the fired the handgun. ?

You said two examples of negligence and i agree and so do others, and then in the same breath some advice that all people should carry a firearm with a round in the chamber no exceptions .That obviously would include the people they are criticizing for being irresponsible and negligent, that's just crazy IMO.

As for them having to chamber a round to protect themselves, having a round in the chamber worked out really for them.

[rickyrick]

A person may need to rack the slide one handed even if they already had a round in the chamber. If your only contingency is pulling the trigger; a revolver might be a more favorable option for you.

People elect capacity over reliability when choosing a carry gun. A plethora of issues can arise with semi auto pistol.

The best bet for point and shoot tactics is a revolver. If you're fighting someone off with one hand, you're already in deep. Chances are your gonna need to rack that slide.
Your action may be full of dirt and blood, you may have accidentally ejected your magazine, you may have anyone of the possible malfunctions. Your first bullet may be in your own leg and part of your shirt is in now caught in the action.

You may end up very happy that there was not a round in the chamber

[Cheapshooter]

Are you saying a two year old racked the slide and the fired the handgun. ?

I'm saying had the parents were responsible gun owners they would have had better control of the gun! In that case, a child of any age could not fire the gun loaded or not.
Something you seem to be missing completely, just like in the thread falsely stating that Glock ha an unsafe design flaw, when a gun is carried, stored, and handled in a responsible way, it is entirely safe to have a round in the chamber.
What is not safe is trying to chamber a round quickly in a stressful situation!

As for them having to chamber a round to protect themselves, having a round in the chamber worked out really for them.

Had they needed the gun for self defense it would have. Being irresponsible, and careless in how they carried, or stored the gun is what did not work out so well for them.
Your argument sounds like something much more from the mouth of an anti second amendment gun grabber than a responsible gun owner.

[manta49]

I'm saying had the parents were responsible gun owners they would have had better control of the gun! In that case, a child of any age could not fire the gun loaded or not

Did you read my post. ?

Quote Manta49.You said two examples of negligence and i agree and so do others,

You are missing the point there are plenty of negligent irresponsible gun owners out there, but people are advising them to carry a firearm with a round in the chamber, does that make sense to you. ? My advice would be think of getting some proper training, before carrying a handgun with a round in the chamber seems reasonable to me. Not a blanket statement to anyone without knowing their experience or knowledge of firearms the only way to carry it with a round in the chamber, that's irresponsible advice , IMO.

Your argument sounds like something much more from the mouth of an anti second amendment gun grabber than a responsible gun owner.

How do you figure that out please explain I am curious.

As for Glock handguns they are perfectly safe with a round in the chamber, in a proper holster carried by someone that followed all the safety rules. But as we all know not all people are like that. That's why some people think an extra level of safety a safety catch etc. Could help prevent some N/Ds.

[Hamsterdam]

i would go with Condition 0, but i have a PT111 Milennium Pro 9mm, which can't be de-cocked, and the holster i use, Hunter's Joy Suede IWB Holster with nylon lining isn't conducive to as precise draws as the Uncle Mike's Pocket Holster i am looking into, or other varieties, just don't want a plastic or belt mount. It is secure, but being soft sided makes me take more caution. So as of now i go Condition 1, as the thumb safety fits me well.

[ferrarif1fan]

I personally believe it is foolish to carry a concealed pistol without a round chambered. If you're drawing, you've already decided it's a life and death situation. Most of those situations don't casually happen. So, the pistol needs to be ready to fire as soon as it's drawn.

I'm a Beretta man. My current concealed carry is a 9mm PX4 Compact with 15+1 capacity. There is always a round chambered, hammer down, and safety off. First shot will be double action. I've reworked my internals so the double action pull is approx. 5-6 lbs. I am not worried about a negligent discharge while I carry. Most double action pistols require a fairly long stroke of the trigger plus a 5-8 pound pull to fire. Typically, that will not happen accidentally. I am confident that my pistol will only fire because someone has made the decision to fire it. That is one reason I like hammer fired, DA/SA pistols. I feel the deliberate DA trigger pull is my safety.

[Cheapshooter]

You are missing the point there are plenty of negligent irresponsible gun owners out there, but people are advising them to carry a firearm with a round in the chamber

As there are people who irresponsibly operate a motor vehicle. Nobody tells them they shouldn't little-known in their tank. Even though they shouldn't.
The point is again the irresponsibility of the individual is to blame, not the gun with a round in the chamber!!!
But blaming the gun, or the ammo is always the basis of argument for the anti gun crowd.

[manta49]

But blaming the gun, or the ammo is always the basis of argument for the anti gun crowd.

And I didn't I said it was the parents fault for allowing the child access to the firearm. But that doesn't change the fact that it would be unlikely that the child could have fired the firearm if their wasn't a round in the chamber. PS I am sure the parents didn't deliberately allow the child access to the firearm, they made a mistake and anyone that think they couldn't make a mistake is kidding themselves. Its the ones that think they know it all, and think that they could never make a mistake that would concern me.

[rickyrick]

No one takes the pistol off of your body?

I have situations where I can't conceal in a normal way due to uniform required, so the pistol then goes into a cargo pocket or coat. I do not want a round in the chamber... My pistol goes with me 24/7. I can't plan for every scenario, but at least the pistol is within reach and I have some confidence that in some situations I can chamber a round. If I can't, oh well. I believe that in my highly physical job, that requires me to go into tight spaces with grabby protrusions in awkward positions that the chance of a chambered round going off is actually higher than a bad guy beating me up... I can probably handle most men without a gun.

Now apparently most other people can stand completely ready to fire a shot and think of nothing else but firing that shot... I'm not one of those people. I need to work to survive, not be 100% combat ready....

Now I do carry loaded most of the time.... It's not practical 100% of the time.... For the times I can't have a pistol loaded, having one ready to load is the next best thing.

I have been in a dire situation where I actually needed a gun a couple of times in my life... One I didn't have a gun with me... It's impossible to dial 911 with an iPhone soaked in your own blood, the touch screen will not work.

[Cheapshooter]

But that doesn't change the fact that it would be unlikely that the child could have fired the firearm if their wasn't a round in the chamber.

And to take that line of thinking to the fullest extent of the gun grabbers, the child would not have been able to fire the gun if the parents didn't have it in the first place. So again, blaming the gun, not the negligence.

[Dragline45]

Originally Posted by manta49

And I didn't I said it was the parents fault for allowing the child access to the firearm. But that doesn't change the fact that it would be unlikely that the child could have fired the firearm if their wasn't a round in the chamber.

I still fail to see how what you take out of that is that "well it wouldn't have happened if there wasn't a round in the chamber". The issue at all isn't that the gun was loaded, it was that the parents gave their child access to a handgun. You can say all you want that you recognize that, but the fact that you keep bringing up that it happened because the handgun was loaded just shows you aren't grasping the real issue at hand. Its just not logical at all.

Originally Posted by Cheapshooter

And to take that line of thinking to the fullest extent of the gun grabbers, the child would not have been able to fire the gun if the parents didn't have it in the first place.

Spot on

[Sequins]

An argument against one in the chamber is equally an argument against having a gun at all. If you feel safer with no risk of a firearm discharging, why have one? An empty holster is even safer than an empty chamber.

I don't worry about losing control of my firearm. I have a belt mounted off-hand side knife if it comes to a struggle for control, and I don't foresee losing control without deploying my off hand knife and winning that struggle or being overcome and losing my life in the process.

If you are more worried about your own gun being used against you or someone you love than you are worried about being victimized by a stranger's gun, then why have one? I can't emphasize enough how much having an unloaded gun is foolish. If you wouldn't fall asleep with a loaded gun on the couch with your grandkids, but would with a gun that was one slide rack away from being loaded... then you are a danger to yourself and others. You are anticipating negligent activity and compensating for it in advance. Negligent people shouldn't have guns.

I clean my guns in a separate room from my ammunition, because I choose to embrace processes that eliminate all risk. I wouldn't put a cigarette in my mouth while reloading either, even if it wasn't lit. When people say they choose to carry unloaded for any reason besides legal then all I hear is how that shooter plans to act negligently, but it's okay because it's unloaded. Insanity. I hope I never have to shoot the kid who picked up your unloaded firearm while you slept because you didn't concern yourself on account of how unloaded it is.

What is the first rule? It's always loaded.

[Brotherbadger]

When I carry my P220, it's condition 2. When it's my glock, it's condition 0.

[TailGator]

I have been trying to stay on the sidelines, but some of the folks posting don't seem to see the difference between carrying a pistol with a round chambered on the one hand, and leaving a pistol lying around unattended with a round chambered on the other hand. The difference is immense.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

My question is, What condition to you carry your NON-1911's? Also, which model/action do you carry in that condition? For reference, I'll include the conditions of readiness, w/o cond#4, below.

Please try not to avoid writing about how all can be golden with training for both drawing and keeping trigger finger off. Those dead horses have been beaten enough, although completely valid, I agree! I shoot weekly and train on those things a lot but feel that I could never rack slide efficiently, one-handed, under extreme stress, which has me leaning towards Condition 0 for all non-1911's, especially for those polymer model's w/internal safe actions.

This is the question, folks - digressing into child safety is not. We also have many responses that the Glock and Glock-oid guns are carried with a round in the chamber and if with a safety - safety off.

Thus, is there anymore to be said? It's just another chambered vs. unchambered debate.

Carry how you feel you can safely handle the gun. If it doesn't work and you shoot yourself or you can't get the gun into action and you lose the fight - it's YOUR choice.

[manta49]

I can't emphasize enough how much having an unloaded gun is foolish. If you wouldn't fall asleep with a loaded gun on the couch with your grandkids, but would with a gun that was one slide rack away from being loaded... then you are a danger to yourself and others. You are anticipating negligent activity and compensating for it in advance. Negligent people shouldn't have guns.

I don't follow your logic, it would be negligent to fall asleep and allow any child access to a firearm loaded or unloaded. You call it anticipating negligent activity, I would call it thinking ahead that you could make a mistake and compensating for it in advance. Maybe it's people that think they are so perfect and couldn't make a mistake, or be negligent that shouldn't have guns.

PS. Some should read my post at no time did I say that people shouldn't carry a firearm with a round chambered. I pointed out that it might not be suitable all the time, there's a difference.

Carry how you feel you can safely handle the gun. If it doesn't work and you shoot yourself or you can't get the gun into action and you lose the fight - it's YOUR choice.

Sounds like good advice to me.

[rickyrick]

My point was carrying and certain legal situations.

Some locations if something isn't specifically prohibited it's legal.

So if you cross into an area which you are not licensed to carry a loaded firearm and it defines what is considered a loaded firearm and that's all that the law addresses is a loaded firearm, then carrying an unloaded gun is still legal.

So if you pass within this area then you can slip the mag into another pocket...

Better than going home to secure the weapon and have nothing.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Closed - guess why.