Carrying live round

[David Armstrong]

Youtube and Google video has some really interesting videos of actual attacks that were caught on tape...plenty of them show where the victim was caught from behind and/or unaware by a fast and viscous onslaught.

In which case chamber loaded or empty really doesn't matter, as they would not have time to draw in the first place. Remeber, the timing of the attack only makes a difference if it occurs in that narrow timeframe between "cannnot draw" and "can draw, rack, and fire."

[David Armstrong]

i would venture to say Lack of training. our troops do not get near as much live fire training as they used to. Im no Sgt.York, but i am better witha gun than most of my friends in the service.

And keep in mind that our troops have far more training than most gunowners and CCW folks. Yet the accidents still occur with alarming regularity.

Our military and civilian ND's are caused by horseplay many of the times - "I didn't think it was loaded."

And given this horseplay, is the ND more likely or less likely if the gun really has an empty chamber?

I know of no military personnel that stand a watch with a condition 3 sidearm, stateside or overseas.

And I know of lots of them. And of course for those that do carry condition 3that is a fairly new idea, which means that for decades carrying chamber empty seems to have worked out OK. Here, let me quote a fellow that seems to know his stuff:
"Condition Three is applicable in both the 1911 and Glock systems and is a common method of carry for military organizations around the world.....U.S. military sentries have even developed a technique of one-handed drawing by reciprocating the slide on the belt or holster to charge the weapon."---Clint Smith, 2000.
And here is a recent Coast guard directive:
R 311255Z OCT 06 ZUI ASN-A00304000005 ZYB
FM COMDT COGARD WASHINGTON DC//CG-11//
TO ALCOAST
BT
UNCLAS //N05100//
ALCOAST 528/06
COMDTNOTE 5100
SUBJ: FALL SAFETY PRECAUTIONS 2006
E. LEARN THE PROPER CARRIES - USE THE TWO-HAND CARRY WHENEVER
POSSIBLE TO MAINTAIN THE BEST MUZZLE CONTROL. ALWAYS CARRY HANDGUNS
WITH HAMMERS OVER AN EMPTY CHAMBER...

So I guess there are still some military that practice chamber empty

[Creature]

In which case chamber loaded or empty really doesn't matter, as they would not have time to draw in the first place.

As I recall, at some point during the attack nearly if not all of the victims were able to separate from their attackers just long enough, in my judgement, to be able to draw a weapon had they been carrying one while fending off the attacker/s with the free hand.

[Creature]

And I know of lots of them. And of course for those that do carry condition 3that is a fairly new idea, which means that for decades carrying chamber empty seems to have worked out OK.

Really? Who?

DoD hasnt carried Condition 3 sidearms since 9/11.

[Deaf Smith]

In which case chamber loaded or empty really doesn't matter, as they would not have time to draw in the first place. Remeber, the timing of the attack only makes a difference if it occurs in that narrow timeframe between "cannnot draw" and "can draw, rack, and fire."

BS david. Oviously you haven't taken South Narc's class. And there are cases where in a struggle cops have drawn their guns and shot their attackers. They even teach many drills to take a gun back if a BG tries to disarm the defender.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

And keep in mind that our troops have far more training than most gunowners and CCW folks.

This is not true. I was in the military for several years and the reason that we mandated that troops carry on an empty chamber was because of lack of familiarity and training with a handgun. Troops tended to accidently discharge their handguns because they were not used to carrying them (ie while on guard duty). I disagree that it is a good way to carry. However, I carry a revolver and so for me it is no matter. I submit that the military does it to keep the weapon "idiot-proof" from unfamiliar soldiers and that civilians many times have just as much or more practice and familiarity with handguns than regular soldiers (not special ops or MPs).

[David Armstrong]

As I recall, at some point during the attack nearly if not all of the victims were able to separate from their attackers just long enough, in my judgement, to be able to draw a weapon had they been carrying one while fending off the attacker/s with the free hand.

As they don't have a gun that is going to be pretty hard to prove. I think I can look at them and come to just as valid a conclusion that they would have been able to rack the slide.

[David Armstrong]

BS david. Oviously you haven't taken South Narc's class. And there are cases where in a struggle cops have drawn their guns and shot their attackers. They even teach many drills to take a gun back if a BG tries to disarm the defender.

BS yourself, deaf. Obviousisy you haven't had much instruction in chamber empty carry, along with so manuy of the things you try to comment on without having a base of knowledge. If you wantt to discuss LEO tactics, start a thread. This thread is dealing with carrying chamber empty while CCW.

[David Armstrong]

DoD hasnt carried Condition 3 sidearms since 9/11.

Apparently the word hasn't gotten down to everybody, then. I hear from friends regularly in the Green Zone who say they are not permitted to chamber a round. My cousin the Colonel, at one of the largest Air Force bases in the U.S. says they do not carry chamber loaded. John Farnam regualrly comments on Marines that he is training who are prohibited from carrying chmaber loaded.

[maxkimber]

Originally Posted by David Armstrong

Unnless someone can show that the most common carry method of the past is now no longer any good, the fact there might be something better doesn't change the fact that it is still good.

Well, I just spent a good bit of time searching and I can not validate your point ("most common carry method of the past"), would you please provide some documentation/evidence?

If not, I must believe that the methods of today are the methods of the past!?!?!? Thus, the best way to carry today either is the way of the past -or- the people of today have learned from the mistakes of the past.

I do not see many people living without electricity these days.

[maxkimber]

Originally Posted by David Armstrong

John Farnam regualrly comments on Marines that he is training who are prohibited from carrying chmaber loaded.

Fact check - There is a MCO (Marine Corps Order) that states if you carry an M-9 you will carry it Condition 1.

http://www.usmc.mil/news/publication...%205500.6F.pdf

[David Armstrong]

Well, I just spent a good bit of time searching and I can not validate your point ("most common carry method of the past"), would you please provide some documentation/evidence?

No, I won't. I've tried to play that game in the past and every time it turns into a problem and gets completely off-topic. If you honestly believe that chamber-loaded was the norm in the past I can only suggest you need to learn more about the history of firearms and their use over the years. That is not meant in an insulting tone, but some things are such basic knowledge that asking about them indicates serious gaps in understanding of a topic.

Thus, the best way to carry today either is the way of the past -or- the people of today have learned from the mistakes of the past.

Or there are now viable alternatives that we recognize that were not there in the past.

I do not see many people living without electricity these days.

And yet lots of people do live without electricity these days. It might not be a nice as with electricity, but it is done and done regularly without too much trouble. That is the whole point here. Yes, there is "new" out there. But "new" coming along does not make "old" obsolete or useless. If we are wanting to do technology analogy, let's try cars. Fuel injection is the way to go these days, but the old points and plugs still work just fine. That is what we are looking at, IMO. Both have advantages and disadvantages, and which is best for you depends on your situation.

[Creature]

Apparently the word hasn't gotten down to everybody, then. I hear from friends regularly in the Green Zone who say they are not permitted to chamber a round. My cousin the Colonel, at one of the largest Air Force bases in the U.S. says they do not carry chamber loaded. John Farnam regualrly comments on Marines that he is training who are prohibited from carrying chmaber loaded.

I can tell you that all military personnel, DoD Police and anyone else in who standing a post, especially in a force protection status, is carrying a sidearm in Condition 1. That is a fact. Go ask your cousin again.

As for training Marines, any marine who is standing a watch that requires carrying a sidearm will be qualified for that sidearm and will be carrying it in condition 1. Training is a different story altogether. No weapons are loaded during training except on a designated firing range during a training session under the command of a qualified range officer.

As for the green zone, the norm is for senior NCO's and officers to be issued a sidearm. When I was there during my IA (less than a year ago), the green zone was considered a "living area" and as such, all weapons were placed in condition 3.

[David Armstrong]

Fact check - There is a MCO (Marine Corps Order) that states if you carry an M-9 you will carry it Condition 1.

You might want to read that a little closer. First, it is from 1995, second it refers to carry in a fairly narrow set of circumstances, and third is specifically excludes "All military and civilian personnel under Marine Corps
control operating under the Rules of Engagement (ROE) in a
combat zone in time of war, a designated hostile fire area or
a designated civil distrubance mission area."
But if you disagree I guess you need to take that up with John. Farnams Quips and Quote, 2007:
************************************
Pistols in Baghdad
01 May 07

Comments on personal weapons management, from a pilot who is one of our students, currently stationed in Baghdad:

"I couldn't help but to respond regarding this subject, as I am currently dealing with the same nonsense. I am here in the Green Zone as part of an aviation unit.

Base commanders have decreed that there are three condition for personal firearms (rifles and pistols), Green, Amber, and Red.

While in the Green Zone, personal weapons must be 'Green.' We would call it 'storage-mode,' no magazine inserted, empty chamber. One may carry rifles and pistols and have a charged magazine or two with him, but they may never be inserted into magazine wells.

'Amber' we would call 'transport-mode.' Charged magazine inserted, but no round chambered. The only ones authorized to carry in Amber are Security Forces, and only when they are actually working as such. At all other times, they are expendable peons like the rest of us.

'Red' is what we would call 'carry-mode,' but it is only theoretical, as no one may have a weapon in that condition. Weapons are NEVER actually carried in 'Red.'
***********************************************
And there are many more in this vein.

[David Armstrong]

I can tell you that all military personnel, DoD Police and anyone else in who standing a post, especially in a force protection status, is carrying a sidearm in Condition 1. That is a fact. Go ask your cousin again.

No need to ask again, we talked this summer, and I doubt he was lying to me, as I saw a group of airmen come in and turn in their M-9s by taking the mags out and showing the chamber was empty by cycling the slide. No rounds in the chamber.

And again, we are getting off topic. It's real simple folks---if you want to show that chamber empty is bad, you first have to explain why it has worked so well for so long, without any mention of these "problems" you bring up.

[maxkimber]

Originally Posted by David Armstrong

You might want to read that a little closer. First, it is from 1995...

Sorry, i've been out awhile - here is the new one:

http://www.usmc.mil/news/publication...%205500.6g.pdf

Try to avoid selective reading...

[maxkimber]

Originally Posted by David Armstrong

And again, we are getting off topic. It's real simple folks---if you want to show that chamber empty is bad, you first have to explain why it has worked so well for so long, without any mention of these "problems" you bring up.

Yes, it is simple, show me how it "worked well" in the past - show me that there were no problems?

All you do is continually repeat yourself providing no evidence of your statements of the past? You have stated you are for a chambered round - why the frustration? Maybe explain your point more effectively so we all can understand your point, because you obviously have not convinced anyone?

[longcoldwinter]

Most weapons are designed to be carried with a round in the camber safely.
There are alot of situations where your not going to be able to chamber a round (Arm disabled, having to draw from a odd angle, lack of training causing you to forget to chamber a round while you draw). Just the act of chambering a round takes time and the BGs bullets travel fast, even the fraction of a second it takes to rack the slide could make a diffence.

Any way you look at it carrying a gun unchambered just increases the chances you wont get your shots off in time. So in short CC of a gun without a round chamber is just not a good thing and may very well get you killed.

[vytoland]

got to be ready when the whip comes down

[bigghoss]

ruger p95 decock only, I bought this one purposely with only the decock as opposed to the manual safety.

round in the chamber, hammer down


glock 17, this is my preferred carry, I like this one because there is no manual safety and has a consistent manageable trigger pull.

round in the chamber as well


ruger p345, I would have gotten a decock only model but I couldn't find one so I had to get the safety version.

round in the chamber, hammer down, safety off


colt 1991a1, while I like 1911's I don't carry it because I prefer to be able to draw and fire

condition 1. round in the chamber, hammer back, safety on

[punkkin]

Of course.

[Deaf Smith]

BS yourself, deaf. Obviousisy you haven't had much instruction in chamber empty carry, along with so manuy of the things you try to comment on without having a base of knowledge. If you wantt to discuss LEO tactics, start a thread. This thread is dealing with carrying chamber empty while CCW.

david... SN's class IS FOR CIVILIANS. Gezz man, what planet are you on? His class isn't LEO tactics. The class, 'Extreem Close Quaters Concepts' is about dealing with grappling attackers. 1/2 is FOF with simulation rounds. One finds out how difficult it is to stop a grappler from getting ones weapon. And chamber empty is just about impossible to pull off once sone one starts grabbing you. You need to get out more and understand chanber empty carry has lots of faults for civilians as well as LEO.

Sorry, i've been out awhile - here is the new one: Try to avoid selective reading...

Oh, he is selective all right. He is for this and that... but. Always some buts in his arguments. Reminds me of Kerry (yea THAT Kerry.)

[maxkimber]

This is a very very good article on the topic:

http://www.armedfemalesofamerica.com...itionthree.htm

I would love to read your comments on this article...

Some other for your reading enjoyment:
http://pistol-training.com/archives/183
http://www.snubnose.info/wordpress/t...y-john-farnam/

[longcoldwinter]

That article pretty much sums up why empty chamber is a bad idea. You really cant make up a good argument for pro empty chamber. Note I said good argument, if your gun or yourself is too unsafe to carry the gun with loaded chamber get a new gun and more training.

[orionengnr]

And here is a recent Coast Guard directive:

Coast Guard?????

They have the ability to close with and engage the adversary at their discretion...and as such, they also have the ability to chamber when confrontation is inevitable. Also known as advance notice.

You and I, as civilians, do not have the luxury of standing off, evaluating the situation, and then deciding to engage at our leisure.

That is the difference. And it is a huge difference.

If that is not obvious to one and all, I am certainly overlooking something. Please help me to understand what that might be.