Finger shortener.

[TunnelRat]

I have pistols with LCIs built into the extractors. I still prefer to do a chamber check. I don’t know that I’d say I feel the need to check it frequently though. You bring up fair points. I am very conscious that handling a loaded firearm entails its own risk. The point about the slide being left out of battery is a good one. I tend to give the rear of the slide a firm tap with my off hand to ensure that the slide does go back into battery. While not a guarantee of returning to battery, of the pistols I own I have yet to have one that wouldn’t go into battery this way if the cartridge in question was usable and not deformed. YMMV.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JohnKSa]

I have pistols with LCIs built into the extractors. I still prefer to do a chamber check.

That's the kind of thing I'm addressing when I say that press checks should be done "with purpose" to minimize unnecessary manipulation of a loaded handgun.

I believe that there are situations where it is reasonable to partially open the action of a self-defense firearm to insure that the chamber is loaded; but in my opinion, that kind of check is carried out far more often than is really necessary.

[TunnelRat]

To that end I’d point back to Sharkbite’s points in post #40.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JohnKSa]

There are going to be different opinions, obviously, but relying on something as complicated as a firearm for self-defense while being concerned about the reliable function of something as simple as an LCI is problematically inconsistent from a logical standpoint, in my opinion.

That said, if seeing a glimpse of brass in the chamber is important to a person, there are guns that are built with this feature. I would suggest that if one is truly worried about the reliability of an LCI, the guns built so that the brass of a loaded cartridge is visible when the gun is ready to fire, would be a better option than manipulating the gun out of a concern that an LCI isn't operating properly. It's also true that many guns can be modified to have this feature, even if they don't come from the factory in that form.

Also, since many LCIs are based on the extractor, if the extractor isn't working, that fact presents a pressing concern for a person who wouldn't choose to go into a self-defense encounter with a single-shot firearm. A better solution would be to carefully check the LCI mechanism each time the gun is maintained and then trust it to operate properly--as one checks the rest of the firearm during maintenance and then trusts it to operate properly.

[TunnelRat]

I’m just going to keep doing chamber checks. If someone wants to do differently fine by me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JohnKSa]

I haven't argued against doing chamber checks. I've simply said that they need to be done with purpose, and safely. The former to prevent needless manipulation of a loaded firearm, and the second for even more obvious reasons.

[TunnelRat]

I don’t believe I’ve disagreed with either of those points. You brought up alternative versions of LCIs. My point was simply, as it seemed it was mostly at that point between the two of us, is that I personally will continue to do chamber checks. There’s nothing more to what I said.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JohnKSa]

You brought up alternative versions of LCIs.

You referred me to another post on the thread in which a poster stated that they refused to trust LCIs. I addressed that concern because I assumed that you brought it up because you felt it was relevant.

My point was simply, as it seemed it was mostly at that point between the two of us, is that I personally will continue to do chamber checks.

I guess I don't understand. Since I haven't been arguing against chamber checks; I thought it made sense to clarify the situation when you stated that you would continue to do them as if that statement were, somehow, a counterpoint to something I had said.

[TunnelRat]

No I brought up that post more for his mentioning of when he does chamber checks in reference to your comments about people doing chamber checks excessively.

To be honest your responses do come across, to me, as being against chamber checks in the instance of a pistol with a LCI. I was simply stating that despite the alternative LCI versions I prefer to do a chamber check. I don’t really see what more there is to discuss along those lines.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JohnKSa]

To be honest your responses do come across, to me, as being against chamber checks in the instance of a pistol with a LCI.

Ah... Got it.

No, I'm not against chamber checks whether the gun does or doesn't have an LCI. Of course, in a gun with an LCI, a chamber check can be done without manipulating the slide and I am against needless manipulation of loaded firearms.

I was simply stating that despite the alternative LCI versions I prefer to do a chamber check.

Implicit in this statement is the assertion that there is no LCI that adequately performs its function since the function of an LCI is, in fact, to provide the ability to do a chamber check without manipulating the slide. Which suggests that my comments about LCIs, how they work, different versions of them, and maintaining them were exactly on point.

If someone wants to do differently fine by me.

Of course. It should always go without saying that voicing one's opinions does not constrain others to a particular course of action.

It should also go without saying that the point of sharing opinions and information and presenting points of view on these forums is so that all involved can benefit from expanding their horizons by hearing differing opinions. There would be absolutely no value in them whatsoever if everyone agreed with everyone else and everyone knew exactly what everyone else knew.

I don’t really see what more there is to discuss along those lines.

Well, just from this one additional post, you now know that at some level you don't believe that any LCI actually performs its intended function with useful reliability. Perhaps you realized that was how you thought about LCIs before now, perhaps you had never really thought about it in precisely that way.

I find that discussions often help me; not only to learn from what others present, but also to clarify and solidify my own views.

[TunnelRat]

Implicit in this statement is the assertion that there is no LCI that adequately performs its function since the function of an LCI is, in fact, to provide the ability to do a chamber check without manipulating the slide. Which suggests that my comments about LCIs, how they work, different versions of them, and maintaining them were exactly on point.

I don't know that I agree with the first statement, at least that wasn't my intent in these recent posts. Personal preference is a thing, and may not seem rational to others. I'm aware of the different versions of LCI and their function. Does that mean I think no LCI is adequate? I don't know that I'd go quite that far, though I guess I say as much in the beginning of this thread (I would rephrase how I wrote that post). I don't believe I said your comments weren't on point, just that I didn't feel my personal preferences required justification.

It should also go without saying that the point of sharing opinions and information and presenting points of view on these forums is so that all involved can benefit from expanding their horizons by hearing differing opinions. There would be absolutely no value in them whatsoever if everyone agreed with everyone else and everyone knew exactly what everyone else knew.

I have never had an issue with sharing opinions. Some people take the sharing of opinions to the point of trying to convince others of their opinions. In years passed this was very much me. I am trying to reduce my tendency to do this and focus on other things going on in my personal life. I haven't stated anyone needs to agree with me, in fact I've tried to say the opposite.

Well, just from this one additional post, you now know that at some level you don't believe that any LCI actually performs its intended function with useful reliability.

Again I am not sure this is true.

I find that discussions often help me; not only to learn from what others present, but also to clarify and solidify my own views.

I very much agree that closing yourself in to the point of not considering any other opinions is detrimental to your development. But I don't feel I need to clarify and solidify my own views on all issues.

[TunnelRat]

I wanted to put something together to more fully address points brought up. I didn’t want to seem flippant in response to an earnest attempt at discussion.

In looking back at the exchange here one of the main sticking points (as outlined by John) is the concern over “needless manipulation of a loaded firearm”. This is a fair point. I think all of us here can agree on the need for safety on the whole. However, not all of us agree on what is “needed”. Millions of Americans do not feel the “need” to own a firearm in the first place. They have decided that the risks associated with doing so do not outweigh the benefit of owning one (or they are even opposed to the notion of owning one). Millions of Americans that own firearms do not feel the “need” to carry a firearm. Once again I imagine the same cost versus benefit analysis has been done on their end. To an extent I feel there is an argument here that “need” is factual and should not be determined by personal preference. But this isn’t always true, as given by the above examples. People can look at the same data and come to different conclusions.

Now am I saying that because I have decided to both own and carry a firearm that I will just accept any additional risk? No (and I am not saying John said this applied to me, I am commenting on what I think is a reasonable extension of that thinking). When I do a chamber check matches the reasons outlined by Sharkbite in Post 40. In all of those instances a person has made the decision to handle a loaded firearm regardless of doing a chamber check. Loading a firearm, checking a firearm’s status, and unloading at the end of a day or shift involves the known or possible handling of a loaded firearm.

The question then becomes if the additional manipulation of holding the pistol while retracting the slide involves such an increased risk that it makes the process untenable. To me if I am already handling that loaded firearm the answer is no. I can maintain the other safety rules. I do not let the muzzle cross something I am not willing to destroy. I keep my finger off the trigger. I am mindful of my target (what the muzzle is facing) and what is beyond it.

Now can people make mistakes? Absolutely, and it happens more regularly than many like to admit. That is why the safety rules are set up in a way so that violation of multiple rules is required for personal injury.

That still leaves the question of need. If an LCI exists why not just use that? Even using an LCI still requires following the standard safety rules. The person still has to handle the firearm to do this (I did see the point of a loaded chamber indicator that can be felt while in a holster, but the firearm had to get into the holster in the first place and most likely was loaded when it did; I do not recheck status after holstering). The difference is the retraction of the slide. The point about the slide being left out of battery is a good one, to which I agreed. Now does retracting the slide induce that much more risk of a discharge? Again, I have determined no, but others might disagree.

Now there’s an argument to be made that not trusting an LCI when it’s a simple mechanical device is a bit odd when the firearm itself is much more complex. That also seems fair to me. There are as I see it three main types of LCI. Those that stick up from the slide, those that are built into the extractor, and those that function as witness holes. I have heard of those that stick up getting stuck in that position (certainly an argument for proper maintenance can be made). Those that are built into the extractor are to me less likely to give false indications, but I have found that they don’t always stick out far enough from the side of the slide for my liking or they don’t always tilt enough to show enough of the red mark (different versions of these). The witness holes generally work (though can be trickier depending on the case material or coating).

So why don’t I personally use a LCI? The ones that are built into the extractor don’t always show or feel enough for my liking. The witness holes I don’t have much of an issue with, though a number of my pistols now have red dots and I have seen where the witness holes can allow excess carbon to build on the lens and inhibit shooting (in fairness here it generally takes more rounds than would be fired in self defense, but it can be annoying at the range). The previous can also apply to ones that stick up from the slide, and again I worry about them getting stuck (again proper maintenance is a fair point here). Lastly and perhaps more notably, it’s the one method that works across all of my pistols. Not all of my pistols have a LCI. Retracting the slide works on all of them. Could I train myself to just use a LCI if present? Likely, but that coupled with some of my gripes about LCIs has led me to default to retracting the slide.

The reason I disagreed with the notion that I was asserting that no LCI meets the requirement of a proper chamber check is because I acknowledge that what I outlined above involves a good deal of personal evaluation. Someone can well look at my reasons and show why he or she believes they are in fact wrong. I’m not asserting that LCIs are bad or don’t work. I’m just stating that for my own use I accept the risk of retracting the slide and prefer that function.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[44 AMP]

I don't know but that we're overthinking things a bit.

Ob der Luger geladen sagt, dann wurde er geladen sind!

Unless you make it "ge-empty" or the extractor is "ge-stuckt"!

Every mechanical device CAN fail. This includes every part of your pistol. We know this! (and, if you don't, you need more/better instruction)

When you clear a gun, do you just look? Or do you do the full, old school thing and physically stick a finger in the chamber as well? After all, your eyes can deceive you, use the Force, Luke!

Most of us just look...generally, that's all I do, unless its dark...

When does checking the chamber go from prudent precaution to OCD??

Because, it can...and, if it becomes a style thing, the warrior readying his gear before battle, there's another risk, and that is that it can be a case of looking without seeing!

And if it does, that's where the finger in the empty chamber proves it's worth.

IF, for some reason you don't know if its loaded, CHECK IT! Do it right, do it safely, and all is well. Do it wrong, and we might be calling you George...or worse, we might be calling you in prison...

[JohnKSa]

The question then becomes if the additional manipulation of holding the pistol while retracting the slide involves such an increased risk that it makes the process untenable.

I don't believe that it does.

My point was that any time one handles a loaded firearm there is associated risk (very small--but not zero). The more often it happens, the higher the overall risk.

Along those lines, it is my opinion that people should not unholster and handle their carry guns in public except when there is critical need. i.e. No show and tell. Not because the act of drawing and handling a firearm creates untenable risk of unintentional discharge but because it carries some risk. When it is necessary to draw a firearm in defense of human life, the risk is still there but the reward makes it worthwhile. Sufficient reward justifies risk. But if there's no reward, even taking on a small amount of risk is pointless.

For example, let's assume (purely for the sake of argument) that every time a person manipulates a loaded firearm, there's a 1 in 500,000 chance of an unintentional discharge. I'm not saying that's really the correct number, I'm just picking something so we have a number to work with.

If a person manipulates a loaded firearm once (e.g. performs a manual chamber check), there's a 0.0002% chance of an unintentional discharge--very small--negligible. But what happens if they do that twice a day for 50 years? Now the lifetime chances of an unintentional discharge are about 7%--no longer negligible. If it's important to perform those manipulations the risk might be acceptable. But, on the other hand, if there were really no need for, say, half of those manipulations, then the risk could be reduced by half without having to give up anything in return.

My comments aren't intended to suggest that performing a manual chamber check is so dangerous that doing it is unwise. But there is clearly some small risk associated with it, and the overall risk builds with repetition. That is why I worded my recommendation as I did. If it is done with purpose and using a technique which is not obviously problematic from a safety standpoint, it shouldn't be a problem. If it's being done when it doesn't need to be done, it is building risk without providing any benefit in return.

[TunnelRat]

Along those lines, it is my opinion that people should not unholster and handle their carry guns in public except when there is critical need.

I can see how this is somewhat related, though I want to clarify that nothing I have said was intended to suggest handling a loaded firearm in public. That is not something I would advise anyone do, chamber check or not, and such behavior is known to have tragic consequences.

My comments aren't intended to suggest that performing a manual chamber check is so dangerous that doing it is unwise. But there is clearly some small risk associated with it, and the overall risk builds with repetition.

I don't deny or argue that the handling of a loaded firearm involves a risk. The question from my perspective on this topic was if I am going to perform a chamber check with a loaded firearm in my hand is retracting the slide as opposed to looking at the extractor, witness hole, or top of the slide LCI inducing that much more of a risk? We seem to agree there.

That is why I worded my recommendation as I did. If it is done with purpose and using a technique which is not obviously problematic from a safety standpoint, it shouldn't be a problem.

And that is why I worded my response as I did. In my general carry of a firearm I check the chamber twice in a day. After I load the pistol and when I am unloading the pistol. As I said above, in those instances I already am required to have the pistol in my hand. I do not chamber check to a point I consider excessive and I accept any risk in doing so. I try to do it, as you outlined, "with purpose and using a technique which is not obviously problematic from a safety standpoint."

[TunnelRat]

When you clear a gun, do you just look? Or do you do the full, old school thing and physically stick a finger in the chamber as well? After all, your eyes can deceive you, use the Force, Luke!

I was taught to use the finger when clearing a firearm as well, but if I'm honest I don't always live up to that. I try.

Because, it can...and, if it becomes a style thing, the warrior readying his gear before battle, there's another risk, and that is that it can be a case of looking without seeing!

And if it does, that's where the finger in the empty chamber proves it's worth.

I seem to remember a thread sometime back where someone noted Massad Ayoob having a ND with a revolver (no press checks there ).

https://www.backwoodshome.com/blogs/...chable-moment/

What's interesting when you read this is that the owner of the firearm, a RSO, and Ayoob himself checked the revolver. Very much looking without seeing. To an extent I wonder if other people checking it before actually contributed to later shooters saying it was fine, essentially the power of suggestion. Someone before had cleared it so of course it was fine to the next shooter.

[JohnKSa]

I can see how this is somewhat related, though I want to clarify that nothing I have said was intended to suggest handling a loaded firearm in public.

I didn't mean to imply that you had. I was just pointing out an issue that has something in common with the one under discussion.

The question from my perspective on this topic was if I am going to perform a chamber check with a loaded firearm in my hand is retracting the slide as opposed to looking at the extractor, witness hole, or top of the slide LCI inducing that much more of a risk?

I think it's reasonable to assert that the more complicated the manipulation is and the longer the firearm is handled, the more the risk. Again, it's not a huge risk--in fact it should be quite small; but the overall risk builds as the number of repetitions increases.

I seem to remember a thread sometime back where someone noted Massad Ayoob having a ND with a revolver (no press checks there ).

Based on a poll I did awhile back on a large gun forum, the single most likely cause of an unintended discharge is pulling the trigger. That works with pretty much any firearm, regardless of action type. Press-checking (as long as it's done using a reasonably safe technique) carries a pretty low level of risk. I don't think people need to be freaked out over doing manual chamber checks. The point is that even the low risk stuff we do can build overall risk to an unacceptable level over many repetitions. The general principle is something worth keeping in mind.

[TunnelRat]

Again, it's not a huge risk--in fact it should be quite small; but the overall risk builds as the number of repetitions increases.

I understand about expected outcomes over the number of events based on single event probability. In my own evaluation the risk is something I am willing to accept.

Based on a poll I did awhile back on a large gun forum, the single most likely cause of an unintended discharge is pulling the trigger. That works with pretty much any firearm, regardless of action type.

That matches the accounts I have read.

Press-checking (as long as it's done using a reasonably safe technique) carries a pretty low level of risk. I don't think people need to be freaked out over doing manual chamber checks. The point is that even the low risk stuff we do can build overall risk to an unacceptable level over many repetitions. The general principle is something worth keeping in mind.

I mentioned press checking with the winky face as a joke, just to be clear. As I have stated, I agree the general principle of risk over time is worth keeping in mind.

[44 AMP]

The point is that even the low risk stuff we do can build overall risk to an unacceptable level over many repetitions. The general principle is something worth keeping in mind.

Pardon me for playing Devil's Advocate, but life is a risk, and in the end, we all die. And, while keeping in mind the general principle of risk over time and number of times we perform an action, I of don't hold to the "cumulative risk" being a real thing.

I think its a numbers game, which works well for people selling risk management and insurance, but is it something that's "really real" in our personal lives?

or are our lives a series of 50/50 chances, each one equally likely at any given point in time? Or, more likely a mixture of both?

Suppose I go 20 years without an accident on the road, am I a good driver? or am I "overdue for an accident" and therefore at greater risk?

If you count risk as increasing every time you perform a given action, then its logical that, at some point, that risk will reach 100%. I don't see that happening in the real world. It happens to some people, and not to some others.

Isn't that the basic way insurance works? The fact that fees paid by the majority of people never have the accident pays for the people who do?

We live in a world where analyzing risk, and selling risk avoidance is big business. Do you think that might shade some people's perceptions a bit?

[JohnKSa]

And, while keeping in mind the general principle of risk over time and number of times we perform an action, I of don't hold to the "cumulative risk" being a real thing.

Anyone can hold any opinion they like, but it's important to understand that while some things are purely a matter of opinion or preference, there are some things that are fact and are therefore unaffected by opinion or preference.

Cumulative risk is a real thing. Yes, it really affects us in real life.

Suppose I go 20 years without an accident on the road, am I a good driver? or am I "overdue for an accident" and therefore at greater risk?

No, on any given day, assuming that circumstances are the same, your chances of a wreck are the same as they are on any other day. You're confusing the gambler's fallacy with cumulative risk.

Flipping a fair coin and getting a long string of heads doesn't change the odds of the next flip outcome. That's what you're talking about and that is not how probability works.

But cumulatively, if you flip a fair coin for a long time, the odds of never getting tails is very small.

If one does something that carries a small risk and does it over and over, it doesn't mean that on the 1000th repetition they are more likely to have an incident than on the 1st or 2nd. But it does mean that if they do it for a very long time, the odds that, at some point, over the many repetitions, there will be a negative outcome, is much greater than if they do it only once.

We live in a world where analyzing risk, and selling risk avoidance is big business. Do you think that might shade some people's perceptions a bit?

Probability tends to be counter-intuitive--that's one reason that casinos are so profitable. But at the heart of it, the math is simple and accurately reflects real world situations.

People's perceptions may or may not be affected, but the math will tell the truth.

[44 AMP]

People's perceptions may or may not be affected, but the math will tell the truth.

My experience is that the math will tell you the math, and it may, or may not be the truth.

We've all heard about how "engineers calculated" that the bumblebee cannot fly, but the bee doesn't know this, and flies, anyway.

That one may or may not be true, but I know this one is...

Girl I worked with was taking a math/physics course and one of her problems was this,

guy dives into a pool, swims to the far end, swims back, and gets out where he got in. She was supposed to use the math she had been taught to prove that the guy went nowhere....

And, according to the math, he didn't go anywhere...
but in truth, he did...or so it seemed to me...

[JohnKSa]

My experience is that the math will tell you the math, and it may, or may not be the truth.

In this particular case the math, if perhaps counter-intuitive is simple and correct. This is a very basic probability problem, not at all complicated and the calculation is not at all prone to errors.

We've all heard about how "engineers calculated" that the bumblebee cannot fly, but the bee doesn't know this, and flies, anyway.

We've all heard many fallacious arguments. The fact that an argument is widespread does not make it correct, and this is a case in point.

Here are a number of independent sources which thoroughly debunk the "bumblebee argument".

https://www.businessinsider.com/bees...orrect-2017-12

"This myth people keep quoting about how bees shouldn't be able to fly is scientifically incorrect..."

So the next time someone tells you a bee shouldn't be able to fly, you should inform them that this is merely a myth perpetuated by popular culture.

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index....ws-of-physics/

bumblebees can, in fact, fly, and that this doesn’t violate any of our understanding of the laws of physics.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/bumblebees-cant-fly/

Scientists once proved that bumblebees can’t fly.
FALSE

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bumblebee_argument

"The "bumblebee argument", in pseudoscience, states that the laws of aerodynamics prove that the bumblebee can't fly, as it does not have the required capacity (in terms of wing area or flapping speed). ...

Unfortunately (for the pseudoscientists), the laws of physics do not in any way forbid bumblebee flight; there are no papers that deny bumblebee flight, and no scientist has done so in a lecture, except, perhaps, ironically. To put it simply, it is possible to "prove" that a bumblebee cannot fly if you perform an extremely crude calculation (like forgetting to take into account things like the rate of flapping, the rotation of the wing, or the action of vortices), but a full aerodynamic calculation (to say nothing of getting all empirical and watching a bumblebee fly) will show that the bumblebee's flight works perfectly fine."

It's not that scientists/engineers can't explain why/how bumblebees fly, it's that an oversimplified model can provide very misleading results.

All that's moot because in the case of accumulated risk, we are not talking about anything nearly as complicated as an aerodynamic model. It is a very basic probability calculation--about as simple as it gets.

guy dives into a pool, swims to the far end, swims back, and gets out where he got in. She was supposed to use the math she had been taught to prove that the guy went nowhere....

And, according to the math, he didn't go anywhere...

That is not what the math said at all.

What you are most likely talking about is the physics formula for work, per the scientific definition of work.

There's a formula proving that he didn't do any "work", using the scientific definition of "work", but there's not one showing "he didn't go anywhere". "Work" in the scientific sense is rigidly defined and has quite a different meaning than the common one.

Again, moot. Although the concept of "work" in physics is not complicated, this problem is even less so. It is a very simple probability problem and given the assumptions made, the answer provided is correct.

[Brit]

When I started this thread.

With my Glock 19, or 43X. My holsters allow me to feel the extractor sitting proud. Yes, round chambered. Next check? Fingertips, good.

I only carry Glock pistols! So checking the status, prior to holstering. Is a given.
In good light, you can see the rear of the loaded round. Plus see, and feel the status of the extractor.

The two holsters I use with the G19. A Kydex of unknown origin? And a much modified Glock plastic sport holster. (cost $12.00?) still looks like new after many years of use. When dressed, pick up G19, glance at same. Holster it.

And that is it. When I open my eyes, I see three green dots! The part with two dots is the back end, where the grip is. And when Massube Ayube states
"Never modify a pistol?" I respectfully say "No night sights!" Never.

[TunnelRat]

I don’t remember Massad Ayoob being against night sights specifically, so it wasn’t all modification he opposed. He has cautioned against modifying trigger weights (lightening them) for the concern that it could be used against you in court. The other point was that if you do want a modification have it done by a gunsmith and also have a justification prepared for it. People have questioned whether all of this is true and we’ve had a number of threads on this.

To be honest, I’m not entirely sure how that or the holster you use tie into the original topic, but you are the OP anyway. It’s probably as natural of a topic extension as a discussion on the real world validity of mathematics (and yes I know what started that latter discussion and why it’s important).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Brit]

I have shot in matches with Massad Ayoob TR. He is a good shot. And I think I have read that he espouses "No modifications" My G19 has an extended slide lock/release.
A polish job, gives a smoother trigger release, at 4.5 lbs. And TruGlo night sights that I installed.
My 43X has the best trigger of any Glock I have ever had, straight out of the box. But my G19 4th gen is my daily carry (at this time!) I spent 20 years as a board member of IALEFI. And saw pistols come in, ousting Revolvers.
I coined a phrase. MORE IS BETTER, ALLWAYS. And still think so. Keep Safe TR.