PDA

View Full Version : More one chamber empty carry


Deaf Smith
February 15, 2010, 11:16 PM
http://www.defense-training.com/quips/09Feb10.html

And Farnam ain't happy!

"When a person indicates that he chooses to not carry a gun, because he is sick, or he just enjoyed a cocktail, or he is on medication, or he has made the personal choice not to go armed, for reasons that apparently suffice for him, you'll hear not a peep of argument from my corner. Far be it from me to dispense unsolicited advice!

However, when an otherwise normal, rational, and able-bodied person knowingly holsters a modern, autoloading pistol whose chamber is empty, and then expects to share a car, or dinner-table, with me, he will have to find someone else with whom to socialize. I want nothing to do with him!

I consider that person unstable and worse than useless. He is intentionally living in fantasy-land, and being in his presence is therefore contrary to my best interests. This world has never been sympathetic with the delusional!

I can't count on his skills, nor obviously, his judgment. "

Frank Ettin
February 16, 2010, 01:09 AM
I really appreciate that way Farnam doesn't mince words.

oldkim
February 16, 2010, 01:18 AM
Just about to write off a lot of folks.

So simply because someone chooses not to carry a round chambered it makes them less than????

His choice.

I guess he hasn't met a lot of Israelis - they have mastered this technique of not carrying a round chambered. I can personally tell you that for those that have mastered this way of carrying they can draw, chamber and shoot faster than most in the US can draw.

If you are confused check out this on youtube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xohtwS1Tm4c

Don't get me wrong. I'm on the boat with what the heck.... but I'm not closed minded. We all have a choice. It's what makes each one of us an individual.

Which ever you choose - one needs to practice and become as good as one can get.

Hotchief
February 16, 2010, 01:18 AM
How about this thought?

Is carrying chamber empty the same as carrying a Spyderco knife with the blade closed in your front pocket? - Is that considered useless?
I think not...

I thought about this today, many consider a knife to be an alternate form of protection when unable to, or not carrying a gun.
I am one of those guys...

I carry several folding Spyderco knives, in which I can rack the slide & chamber a round with any of my guns faster than drawing my knife & flicking the blade open.

Just because I carry a folding knife, and someone may carry a handgun chamber empty, I see the same delayed timeframe in putting the weapon into defense - but I don't see them as useless...

I am one of the rare breed that trains with the mindset of chamber empty.
I work on having the dance down of chambering as I unholster & it feels right for me.

Carry on folks...;)

Don H
February 16, 2010, 01:29 AM
Serious question for the folks that carry with the chamber empty: How fast can a round be chambered with only one hand? Any links to videos showing this being done?

Nnobby45
February 16, 2010, 01:31 AM
I can personally tell you that for those that have mastered this way of carrying they can draw, chamber and shoot faster than most in the US can draw.


What do you mean by they? Not sure that the average Israeli has mastered that technique, but those with above average skills apparently have, and it may work fine where people carry to respond to a terrorist attack---- where both hands would be available.

Still doesn't address the often occuring scenario, in our own country, that involves the personal type of criminal attack that has one hand occupied and one available for the draw.:cool:

Where Israelis are concerned, armed society and all, they have a bit of paranoia where guns are concerned. The typical Israeli that carries a pistol would be alarmed at a condition One .45 Auto.

Or by two of 'em--- like those carried by Eugine Socket whose book "Gunfighting Israeli Style" I highly recommend. One was carried X draw and was sometimes visible. Wasn't uncommon for people to come up to him and say, angrily, "Is that pistol cocked?"

Well, yes it was, and so was the one they couldn't see. A pair of Swensons. Man has style.:D I believe he ended up hiding both of 'em to avoid problems.

I also like his video (even if it is a little old), which I think has the same name as the book.:cool:

KAK
February 16, 2010, 01:44 AM
If you dont carry one in the chamber why not just carry a revolver. :confused:

It seems like a DA revolver would be much faster than an auto you have to rack the slide on.

RobAB
February 16, 2010, 03:01 AM
While the guy certainly should get some training, acting as if he's unstable and a dangerous idiot is over the top and unnecessary. Treating the guy like a moron isn't going to do anything to help bring him into the fraternity, as it were. You can show and educate people without going on about how much smarter and better you are than those uneducated, weak willed, sheeple that aren't fit to lick your boots, etc. and to throw away your chance to do that very thing is the truly foolish action committed here.

jhenry
February 16, 2010, 08:42 AM
Farnhamis right, even if he is a bit over the top in his choice of words. Not good to alienate folks who may be able to see the light one day. Language like that tends to entrench folks in their positions.

We had this discussion very recently here, and despite folks claiming to be proficient at chamber empty carry, no one was able to articulate a valid reason to carry a normal modern handgun in such a manner that it was not ready for use. None. Why would a person make a concious choice to handicap themselves in this way? Simply saying or demonstrating that person X, or gunphobic country X, can draw and engage a target begining with an empty chamber is a specious argument and has nothing to do with the matter at hand. Convince me they can do it faster begining with an empty chamber than they can with a handgun which has an actual cartridge in the chamber, and tell us about it.

If your gun is not safe with a round in the chamber, then save your pennies and get a decent weapon. If you are simply afraid or nervous about carrying a weapon without intentionally disabling it, then that's fine with me, that is your buisness, but don't try to convince me you are just as proficient and quick by ADDING a step. This does not even begin to address the issue of perhaps not having both hands available at the time.

AcridSaint
February 16, 2010, 08:46 AM
I can rack the slide pretty fast one handed, but I can see no reason to ever carry without a round in the chamber. If you are carrying an unsafe gun, get a safer gun. The only reason it is done by the Israeli's was to standardize technique across multiple weapons systems. No one carrying a handgun for personal defense should be so unfamiliar with their weapon. Why in the world would you put yourself at an even greater disadvantage? You're already going to be in a reactive mode in nearly all gun fights.

smince
February 16, 2010, 09:14 AM
Based on readings elsewhere, the Israeli's no longer use chamber-empty carry since going to more modern weapons.

jdscholer
February 16, 2010, 09:42 AM
Gee, now I feel so ---"less than"; or maybe "at risk".

I support responsible concealed carry, and often carry myself. I also often don't. Sometimes I carry a DA revolver which is always "at ready", and sometimes I carry a striker fired auto that I won't keep with a chambered round.

I am fairly devastated that this guy won't knowingly include me in his list of social friends or dinner partners.:rolleyes: Oh well, life goes on. jd

bababooey32
February 16, 2010, 09:49 AM
The comparison to Israeli carry is a non-sequiter. Ask any in the Israeli military if they would prefer to have one in the pipe! They carry that way because it is mandated, not because it is tactically superior. The individual Farnam is berating has chosen to carry in this manner - something that, in his opinion, is boderline insane. While that may be over the top, he is asserting that, when given the choice and with today's technology, carrying "chamber empty" shows a considered lack of judgement OR lack of knowledge. Niether of which are characteristcis of a person with whom he wishes to consort.

I have no problem interacting with someone who makes that choice, though I do think it shows a certain lacking (either in skills, judgement, knowledge and/or confidence).

To reiterate, if given the choice, I believe most Israeli soldiers would choose one in the pipe over chamber empty.

RobAB
February 16, 2010, 10:17 AM
The guy isn't borderline insane for carrying an empty chamber, he's just concerned, uncomfortable and simply doesn't know any better. He hasn't learned that carrying on a loaded chamber can be perfectly safe. He's also likely to never increase his knowledge because someone who is a gun "expert" (at least to his eyes) chose to humiliate and treat him like a fool instead of lead by example and explain.

The behavior is really no different than the story about the story about the tech support rep who tells the people to box up their desktop and send it back because they're too stupid to own a computer. It's stupid and unprofessional and shows the "expert" as a jerk with his nose in the air. If you're like this guy and knowledgeable of guns, how would you react to someone in another industry that you don't know much about treating you like an idiot?

ClayInTx
February 16, 2010, 10:42 AM
First, I do carry chambered.

HOWEVER,

The person who carries an empty chamber isn’t worth Farnam’s association?

BUT, the person who not only does not carry a chambered round because he does not even carry a gun is worth Farnam’s association and Farnam will not utter a peep of argument?

Both of these persons are not ready for instant draw and fire, but the one most unready is worthy?

Please give me a bit of time to parse this and I’m certain I’ll figure the logic; two hours to forty-seven years should be ample.

w_houle
February 16, 2010, 10:47 AM
no one was able to articulate a valid reason to carry a normal modern handgun in such a manner that it was not ready for use. None.
... and here we go again:rolleyes:
For those who carry with an empty chamber, no reason is necessary and for those who don't, no reason is valid.
So on that: **** him, I have enough friends.

win-lose
February 16, 2010, 10:47 AM
...
However, when an otherwise normal, rational, and able-bodied person knowingly holsters a modern, autoloading pistol whose chamber is empty, and then expects to share a car, or dinner-table, with me, he will have to find someone else with whom to socialize. I want nothing to do with him!
...
I consider that person unstable and worse than useless
...
I can't count on his skills, nor obviously, his judgment



This is ridiculous. For people who lead "normal lives", choosing friends based upon their ability to defend you is just plain crazy. If the comments were about someone who starts trouble, I'd totally agree.

Folks, at some point, we need to live our lives....

kraigwy
February 16, 2010, 10:55 AM
Empty Chamer?

I try to ponder this:

Think about setting in a resturant, pushing my granddaughter to the floor while racking a slide.

I think not.

Glenn E. Meyer
February 16, 2010, 10:55 AM
Farnam is a great guy. What he chooses to use as a criterion for friendship is his choice. We all have personal tipping points for friendships.

Anyway, Pat Rogers in SWAT just a bit OK said basically the same thing about unchambered semi carry. We have also beaten the Israeli thing into the ground.

Do we need another 100 posts on this? Go read past debates and see if you can come up with something beyond:

1. I'm scared I will shoot myself or someone will take the gun and shoot me.
2. If unchambered I'm behind the curve if I have to act quickly due to time to chamber or having a handicap necessitating a one handed chambering - which is slower unless you are the Flash.

win-lose
February 16, 2010, 11:05 AM
Farnam is a great guy. What he chooses to use as a criterion for friendship is his choice. We all have personal tipping points for friendships.

Fair enough... I don't know him and I definitely shouldn't judge him.

Personally, I do not share his philosophy on this specific issue of friendship.

w_houle
February 16, 2010, 11:06 AM
Do we need another 100 posts on this? Go read past debates and see if you can come up with something beyond:

1. I'm scared I will shoot myself or someone will take the gun and shoot me.
2. If unchambered I'm behind the curve if I have to act quickly due to time to chamber or having a handicap necessitating a one handed chambering - which is slower unless you are the Flash.
Okay. It's a level of escalation between carrying your gun and shooting. I know someone would think it to be brandishing, and bad form but it shouldn't be seen as such. It is an opportunity for whomever to think about the repercussion of their action as opposed to actions that don't allow for de-escalation.

zukiphile
February 16, 2010, 11:17 AM
We had this discussion very recently here, and despite folks claiming to be proficient at chamber empty carry, no one was able to articulate a valid reason to carry a normal modern handgun in such a manner that it was not ready for use. None. Why would a person make a concious choice to handicap themselves in this way?

I don't believe the matter is so clear. In one of those threads, you can find the following:


I can't imagine carrying a weapon unless it's ready for immediate action.

Some do. It is a matter of balancing the risk of carrying in a manner that delays the weapon from being ready immediately against the risk of being injured oneself because the weapon is at all times immediately ready.



I think that the answer is to keep others from handling your weapon.

The problem is that this is not within your control. If a nervous PO decides that he needs to remove your pistol from your person, how confident are you that he will not handle the weapon so as to cause it to fire? Where will it be pointed if it fires?

Now, I would expect that nearly all the time the PO can do this without incident. We see from these pages that it is not uncommon for PO to remove an arm from a fellow as a self-protective measure. No one wants to be the exception, the statistic that shows accidents happen.

Imagine the PO who placed your wife's pistol in her glovebox, safety off, hammer back, round in the chamber. If that PO removes your arm, would you like him to remove an arm from your possession chamber loaded or unloaded?

AcridSaint
February 16, 2010, 11:21 AM
Or an opportunity for them to react violently. When I was a teenager my old man told me "if you ever point a gun at someone, you better be ready to shoot them". I'll say this - I hope that anyone who ever pulls a gun on me plans on giving me a little time to reflect.

RobAB
February 16, 2010, 11:24 AM
I find the point of the thread not as the re-hash of pros / cons -- as pointed out, done to death -- but how you deal with the chance to educate someone who knows little. Certainly, the fact that it's about a contentious topic tends to overshadow everything else. ;)

w_houle
February 16, 2010, 11:28 AM
Or an opportunity for them to react violently. When I was a teenager my old man told me "if you ever point a gun at someone, you better be ready to shoot them".
That's true, but is that a statement for one in the chamber or merely a statement of actually following through with using a gun as it's intended purpose if using it should prove to be the case
I'll say this - I hope that anyone who ever pulls a gun on me plans on giving me a little time to reflect.
To give you an opportunity to contemplate as to why someone would pull a gun on you, or is it merely your last window of opportunity to attack? Or are attempts at de-escalation just for suckers?

AcridSaint
February 16, 2010, 11:33 AM
Pulling out a lethal weapon is never a de-escalation attempt in my eyes and it's foolish to rely on the mere presence of a lethal weapon to de-escalate the situation. I want every second or fraction of a second I can get my hands on when I have to react to a violent situation, so I do hope that I get that time to "reflect".

w_houle
February 16, 2010, 11:38 AM
Pulling out a lethal weapon is never a de-escalation attempt in my eyes and it's foolish to rely on the mere presence of a lethal weapon to de-escalate the situation. I want every second or fraction of a second I can get my hands on when I have to react to a violent situation, so I do hope that I get that time to "reflect".
Do you know how I know you've never been on the wrong end of a gun?

Shawn Dodson
February 16, 2010, 11:40 AM
I guess he hasn't met a lot of Israelis - they have mastered this technique of not carrying a round chambered. I can personally tell you that for those that have mastered this way of carrying they can draw, chamber and shoot faster than most in the US can draw. Looks like the guy in this video hadn't quite "mastered" the skill. He did get shot before he drew his weapon, which may have hindered his ability to properly work the slide. It's sad to watch him crumble to the ground as he realizes his gun is hopelessly jammed. To add insult to [fatal] injury, the bad guy steals the gun right out of his hands.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=086_1260862712

Regardless, Farnam's opinion is extremist.

Brian Pfleuger
February 16, 2010, 11:41 AM
I fail to see why de-escalation can only be accomplished while carrying a chamber empty gun.

In fact, I fail to see any correlation whatsoever.

sixxgunnernick
February 16, 2010, 11:42 AM
Better to have an unchambered gun than no gun at all!

Silent Bob
February 16, 2010, 11:43 AM
While I do not condone unchambered carry (having carried nothing but loaded Glocks and cocked and locked 1911s and HK USPs), I would not want to share a table with someone that gets that worked up over someone else's mode of carry. Farnham needs a chill pill, stat.

teeroux
February 16, 2010, 11:55 AM
I guess he hasn't met a lot of Israelis - they have mastered this technique of not carrying a round chambered. I can personally tell you that for those that have mastered this way of carrying they can draw, chamber and shoot faster than most in the US can draw.

The guy in the vid isn't fast. Added steps will ALWAYS slow you down.

Do you know how I know you've never been on the wrong end of a gun?

:rolleyes: Was it his lack of a thousand yard stare?:rolleyes:

xjmox14x
February 16, 2010, 11:56 AM
And he could tell all that about a man just by how he chambers his sidearm?

Huh.

I guess he thinks the skilled men who can draw, chamber a round, and fire before he has his firearm out of its holster that he's a better man than them and more skilled.

Must be hard to see the computer screen all the way up there on that horse...

AcridSaint
February 16, 2010, 12:00 PM
Do you know how I know you've never been on the wrong end of a gun?

You don't :rolleyes:

Don P
February 16, 2010, 12:39 PM
I guess he hasn't met a lot of Israelis - they have mastered this technique of not carrying a round chambered. I can personally tell you that for those that have mastered this way of carrying they can draw, chamber and shoot faster than most in the US can draw.

How many people do you know personally that have mastered the technique? I know no one that has. How about some of the members chiming in here if they know any mastering this choice of carry.

LordofWar
February 16, 2010, 12:45 PM
Even though I'm all against an empty chamber I'd still say Farnham is rude.

Empty chamber is the going here in Pakistan as well. It is probably because reliable & quality firearms did'nt make it to the country until recently (5-10 years) and ownership is limited to a certain income group as the prices are usually 300-500% more than what you guys pay in the US.

Tokarevs are the most common & inexpensive (priced at $100-$400 USD) handguns that are available here and have proven to be very unreliable and could easily discharge from a bump or an accidental fall. 99.9% of the Toks that we get dont even have externel safties let alone internal.

Moreover, socializing with your autoloader cocked is usually considered offensive and would make your peers uncomfortable. Even the LE & military practice & mandates empty chamber carry as a safety pre requisite so if you're stopped at a police checkpoint & a weapon is recovered with one in the chamber you're surely going to raise some eye brows.

Its a cultural thing in some ethnic groups to have rugs in the guest rooms instead of furniture so people usually unpack what their packing and put them under a leg or something...another reason why people dont carry cocked as there could be children or just another idiot intrigued with a weapon who might poke into your weapon while you're not paying attention. Also clearing a weapon before you enter somebodys house or in front of people (racking slide etc) would also be considered offensive.

Weapon safety is psychotically hammered so much by the elders that Ive even seen some carrying a revolver with 5 rounds instead of six.

Capt. Charlie
February 16, 2010, 12:46 PM
This subject seems to pop up every now and then, but for the life of me, I can't understand why it always deteriorates into a morass of incivility.

I'm giving this one a chance to see if it can remain civil and mature, but it already appears to be headed into a death spiral.

Keep it civil folks. Whether or not this remains open is entirely up to you.

firespectrum
February 16, 2010, 12:48 PM
I don't know about the Israelis, but I've been with the US military in a combat zone where the standard was empty chamber carry. However it wasn't because it gave any kind of tactical advantage; it was because in any group of soldiers there is always one (sometimes more than one) idiot. It's hard to tell how many negligent discharges were prevented by this policy, but seeing as a few people STILL managed to pull it off, I'd imagine it prevented quite a few.

When you perform every single daily activity with your weapon equipped, the hyper-safe mentality of the first few weeks diminishes as the months drag on. I think the same phenomenon occurs with CC. You have to develop sefety habits to a point where you no longer have to think about it, because eventually you won't anymore. Most of us were diciplined and could probably have carried condition one 100% of the time and had no issues, but not all. If you feel you need to carry with an empty chamber to prevent yourself from having an accident, you should probably reconsider carrying.

On the other hand, if safe gun handling IS second-nature to you and you just want to carry with an empty chamber to be extra, extra, extra safe I think that's better than not carrying at all. A bit paranoid IMO, but I've been called paranoid just for carrying in the first place so I really can't say anything to ya!

LordofWar
February 16, 2010, 12:54 PM
P.s. I've practiced & kind of mastered to rack the slide while I draw. Ive timed myself and can draw, load & land an accurate shot in less than second. At the same time it takes longer for me to draw, shoot a decocked pistol in DA mode. Also I'm comparatively less accurate when quick drawing & shooting a handgun in DA mode.

Frank Ettin
February 16, 2010, 12:59 PM
...Ive timed myself and can draw, load & land an accurate shot in less than second....But the point is that it takes you two hands to do it. I'm not willing to count on having both hands available in an emergency.

w_houle
February 16, 2010, 01:08 PM
But the point is that it takes you two hands to do it. I'm not willing to count on having both hands available in an emergency.
... and shooting a gun effectively requires the use of one good hand: How are you going to guarantee that? See how that works:rolleyes:

BlueTrain
February 16, 2010, 01:09 PM
How did this fellow Farnham get elected to his office anway? I have no objections to chamber loaded carry, including cocked and locked on your modern pistol designed in 1911. But I have objections and so should anyone else about being dictated to on the subject. Don't care to carry a pistol with a chambered round, then one isn't fit to carry a handgun? Well, that's certainly conservative, isn't it.

I wonder what he thinks of other drivers?

Brian Pfleuger
February 16, 2010, 01:16 PM
... and shooting a gun effectively requires the use of one good hand: How are you going to guarantee that? See how that works

That argument simply doesn't work. Having no hands is not an advantage to the guy with an empty chamber. Having two arms works for both, having one arm works (much better) for a loaded chamber and having no arms works for no one.

That's two situations that work for the loaded chamber guy and one that works for the chamber empty guy and one that works for no one.

Advantage: loaded chamber.

LordofWar
February 16, 2010, 01:21 PM
But the point is that it takes you two hands to do it. I'm not willing to count on having both hands available in an emergency.

And what guarantee do you have that you'e shooting hand would be workable in an emergency?

LordofWar
February 16, 2010, 01:26 PM
However we may advocate carrying one on the chamber the fact remains there WILL BE negligent discharges and subsequent casualties esp when one is new to carrying.

Casualties from negligent/accidental discharges are far more than casualties resulting from that marginal second that you wasted chambering your weapon.

AcridSaint
February 16, 2010, 01:32 PM
I only require a hand in an emergency, not both hands or a specific hand. I work every week at shooting with my off hand for just that situation.

Again, I can't see why someone would make that choice with modern pistols. If you're stuck in a bad situation in Pakistan then your circumstances dictate that you use a different method of carry, but I don't see how that would translate into folks who have reliable handguns available to them.

Brian Pfleuger
February 16, 2010, 01:33 PM
However we may advocate carrying one on the chamber the fact remains there WILL BE negligent discharges and subsequent casualties esp when one is new to carrying.


That's simply not true.

I am an inexperienced handgun owner. I carry a Glock with one in the chamber. I keep the gun holster at all times except when I get undressed for bed. At that time, the gun is drawn from the holster, with my finger off the trigger and out of the trigger guard, and placed in a quick access safe. The entire rest of every single day the gun lives in a holster that is made for the gun, holds it securely and covers the trigger guard. When I draw from the holster for ANY reason I do not *ever* place my finger on the trigger or inside the trigger guard except when I have made up my mind to make some noise.

Negligent discharges come from NEGLIGENCE not from loaded guns. As a matter of fact, how often do you hear about accidents with "unloaded" guns? Happens all the time. Personally, I think carrying an unloaded gun is MORE likely to create negligent discharges, due to complacency. "What? No biggie... It's unloaded..I never chamber a round...."

Daugherty16
February 16, 2010, 01:34 PM
First off, the guy carried in a holster into the range. The article said so. So where exactly did the box come from that he (Farnham) packed it back up in? Hmmm.

Second, his harsh words were opinion - clearly stated as such - and were not said directly to the "acquaintance". On the whole i found it a bit strong, and it certainy doesn't speak for me. However, the only real advice he gave to the guy was very good advice - i've seen it on these forums hundreds of time - get professional training.

Now if he'd railed on the guy in person, all the derision from his pages pouring out as he packed up the guy's pistol, my guess is he wouldn't have to worry about inviting the guy to dinner - he'll never see him again because he won't ever be back to that range again! Agreed - this was an opportunity to teach, and it sounds like Farnham missed that opportunity and went over the top. This type of sales approach certainly wouldn't retain customers. I tend to wonder how much embellishment is incorporated into the story...

In these days of increasing gun sales and popularity, coupled with increased pressure from the anti's and the elected, it strikes me that we need to encourage, teach, and support fellow shooters, especially newbies. We have the opportunity to get them started the right way, make our friends a little safer, while doing so for the entire community as well.

Me, i like one chambered but the safety/decocker on. A flick of the thumb and i'm shooting. Wonder what he'd say about me?

LordofWar
February 16, 2010, 01:54 PM
peetzakilla,

You are mature & careful but not everyone is.

I've been around weapons since I was a child as they're as they're more of a traditional thing in the family but truth be told it took me some time to get used to a round in the chamber. I became ultra cautious and it felt like a psychological burden in the beginning. I became so paranoid that I had a PostIt stuck on the gun, CHAMBERED written with a red marker (Not Kidding here). Maybe it was because my elders had hammered those safety procedures since the day I received my first gun and those safety procedures said 'Never load a gun unless you intend on using it'. (well an obsolete SOP in this era)

But I still discourage a newbie to carry one in the pipe until he's proficient with standard safety procedures of his weapon and that comes with range time and spending time with your weapon. Once you've developed that comfort level with your weapon it becomes second nature.

Carrying a chambered weapon from your first day - BAD IDEA.

Well there are pros & cons of both cocked & empty chamber. An equilibrium point to this debate could probably be established by alternating between modes with respect to your surroundings but again there will still be a provision for OUT OF THE BLUE scenarios which is when personal preferences come into play.

Frank Ettin
February 16, 2010, 02:40 PM
... and shooting a gun effectively requires the use of one good hand: How are you going to guarantee that?...Can't guaranteed anything, but I increase my chances if I can manage my gun effectively with one hand.

...And what guarantee do you have that you'e shooting hand would be workable in an emergency?... Either of my hands is my shooting hand. That's one of the benefits of training and practice.

...However we may advocate carrying one on the chamber the fact remains there WILL BE negligent discharges and subsequent casualties esp when one is new to carrying...And that's a training issue. Indeed, I find it very disconcerting that so many gun owners are willing to carry a gun in public but are unwilling to invest the effort, time and money to get decently trained and to practice properly and regularly. But that's another subject.

In any case, all of the major schools and best known instructors teach carrying a round chambered.

...those safety procedures said 'Never load a gun unless you intend on using it'. (well an obsolete SOP in this era)...The NRA rule is "Always keep the gun unloaded until ready for use." And as an NRA certified instructor for, among other things, Personal Protection in the Home and Personal Protection Outside the Home, we teach that when a gun is carried for self defense it is being used for that purpose and is to be loaded.

G-man 26
February 16, 2010, 02:54 PM
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
February 16, 2010, 03:12 PM
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
February 16, 2010, 03:14 PM
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
February 16, 2010, 03:18 PM
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
February 16, 2010, 03:19 PM
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
February 16, 2010, 03:20 PM
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
February 16, 2010, 04:43 PM
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
February 16, 2010, 05:05 PM
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
February 16, 2010, 05:23 PM
This debate will evolve into something never ending.

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

ClayInTx
February 16, 2010, 05:42 PM
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
February 16, 2010, 05:52 PM
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?

:D

w_houle
February 16, 2010, 05:57 PM
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
February 16, 2010, 06:10 PM
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
February 16, 2010, 07:10 PM
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
February 16, 2010, 07:33 PM
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
February 16, 2010, 09:46 PM
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
February 16, 2010, 10:13 PM
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.