Carrying live round

Do you carry handgun with a round in chamber i.e. live round?


  • Total voters
    155
Status
Not open for further replies.
David Armstrong said:
I would like to point out that I too am on the chambered side. Where I tend to disagree with many is the idea that chamber empty is useless, is always wrong, will get you killed, is like carrying a club, is evidence of fear of firearms, indicates lack of training, and the assorted other wild claims that are obviously wrong.

1. Useless - no, it is great for long-term storage:)
2. Is always wrong - no, see number 1 above:D
3. Will get you killed - it is possible:eek:
4. Is like carrying a club - clubs do not have chambers, let's not get silly
5. Is evidence of fear of firearms - no, fear of bullets;)
6. Indicates lack of training - Yes, OR more dangerous an overconfidence in training:(
7. Obviously wrong - ummmmm, no, just different from the majority. :D

I am with you David, just having fun... This topic is like Dem/Rep, Ford/Chevy, etc.
 
Yep, always carry one in the pipe, cocked, and thumb safety off on my Springfield Mil-Spec

"anything else is just for throwing" :cool:
 
Will chamber empty get you killed?

Just read alot of the American Rifleman "Armed Citizen" or even just your news papers and see how many people got into struggles with their assailant (armed or not) and then imagine if their gun was carried chamber empty.

Of course even a loaded gun can get you killed if you let someone snatch it. Plenty of evidence there.

Anyone here know of any, and I mean any, law enforcement agency in the U.S. that carries chamber empty? How about Europe? Asia? Not talking about military but LEO organizations.
 
If you have "an educated trigger finger" then on most modern pistols, you should carry with a round in the chamber. My personal defense pistols (2 carry guns and nightstand gun) are always loaded, always chambered, all the time. If they're not on my person, they're locked in the safe but fully loaded. My other handguns are completely unloaded and locked away.
 
So, if you had a gun with a full mag and an empty chamber and came under attack you would throw it instead of charging the chamber and shooting??

O.K. David, I Digress, but my point is (IMHO) that within a great number of scenarios, you likely will not have time to rack the slide, and the gun will be useless... Except maybe as a blunt-force trauma tool.

But again, this is just my opinion, and the reason I carry the way I do. I am not an expert;)
 
Last edited:
The reasons advocating an unloaded chamber you provided actually 'ate me up' over night and I have to voice my opinion - sorry.:)

maxkimber said:
I am curious, what are the advantages of carrying an unloaded gun?

Your answer in its entirety:

David Armstrong said:
It is not an unloaded gun. There is a magazine full of rounds loaded in it. Advantages will differ for different people in different situations. You mentioned one already--guns that are not equipped with some of the more modern safety designs.

I agree 100%. If you carry an older gun without internal safety devices, I do not advocate carrying a round in the chamber (although I would). This is the only quasi justification (IMHO) to not carry a round in the chamber.

"Advantages will differ for different people in different situations" I would like to read some???:confused: As I believe the other reasons you list are not valid argument for or against carrying with a round in the chamber, allow me to explain...

David Armstrong said:
Another might be if your situation requires you to load/unload a lot.

This is not a valid argument. This is neither an advantage or disadvantage, as to properly clear a weapon you have to rack lock the slide to the rear and you should never pull the trigger. So, have a round in the chamber would be about the same as not having a round in the chamber - only difference you either have to catch the round from the chamber or pick it up. This a just plan laziness IMHO. Do you think police officers who frequent prisons don't put a round in the chamber because they just have to unload again when we get to the prison?

David Armstrong said:
Some guns the safety is hard to get too or to operate for some people.

This is not a valid argument. If I chose to carry a gun with an external safety, the safety would be off anyway. What is the difference between carrying a gun with no external safety and one with an external safety off - none. For instance, I carry a Beretta PX4 type-C (no external safeties), a friend of mine carries a Beretta PX4 type-F (external safety), but he carries it with the safety off. It is very close to the same gun, but some people like an external safety, no problem, but both should be carried with a round in the chamber. More importantly, why would you carry a gun wherein "the safety is hard to get too or to operate." For your safety/security and the safety of those around you, go to an experienced gun shop and get fitted for a gun that you can effectively manipulate. If you can't manipulate a 1911, don't carry it - shoot by all means, but don't CCW.

David Armstrong said:
Others might find the first DA pull of a DA/SA gun to be problematic.

This is not a valid argument. Don't carry a gun you find problematic. For your safety/security and the safety of those around you, go to an experienced gun shop and get fitted for a gun that you can effectively shoot. Or a very viable option, instead of having to rack a round try cocking the hammer. If you carry with a round in the chamber you can still fire, albeit problematic, and if you don't like firing DA, simply cock the hammer, if you have time.:rolleyes:

David Armstrong said:
Again, it is always situational. What is an advantage for one person in one situation might be a disadvantage for another person or in another situation. But, as mentioned, in the overall scheme of life it really doesn't matter much.

This is not a valid argument. Yes, everything is situational. The problem is you do not know the situation in advance. You can't say: ok, today I will be attacked, but I will have time to rack my slide, so I will carry without a round in the chamber today. I would like to read a situation that a chambered round was a disadvantage???:confused:

David Armstrong said:
Either method works fine for virtually all non-LE situations.

This is not an argument. Either method works fine, if, if, if, you do not have to employ your weapon.
 
It can be both. IIRC, there are still a fair number of NDs with our troops, in spite of all the training.

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.
 
Ruthless4christ said:
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.

Most NDs live up to the definition: negligence, carelessness, etc. I mean come on, don't ever pull the trigger unless you intend to shoot something/one/etc. I can give a loaded gun to a 10 year old and tell him do not pull the trigger unless you, well, you get the point. Our military and civilian ND's are caused by horseplay many of the times - "I didn't think it was loaded.":mad:

http://negligentdischarge.com/
 
within a great number of scenarios, you likely will not have time to rack the slide, and the gun will be useless... Except maybe as a blunt-force trauma tool.
That is an oft-stated fear, but as I've said before in reality it seems those fears just don't actually occur.
 
That is an oft-stated fear, but as I've said before in reality it seems those fears just don't actually occur.

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. It does occur far more often than you think. Saying it doesnt seem to actually occur doesn't mean it cant or wont.
 
Just read alot of the American Rifleman "Armed Citizen" or even just your news papers and see how many people got into struggles with their assailant (armed or not) and then imagine if their gun was carried chamber empty.
Not sure what struggling with the assailant has to do with much, given that an anaalysis of the Arme Citizen column showed that in 80% of cases the firearm was obtained from a place of storage rather than on the person, frequently in another room.
Anyone here know of any, and I mean any, law enforcement agency in the U.S. that carries chamber empty? How about Europe? Asia? Not talking about military but LEO organizations.
Not real sure what the carry habits of LEOs has to do with non-LE CCW, and I think it is worth pointing out that right off the bat you choose to exclude the most common empty chamber group, the military. And as I've mentioned before, there is the ever-popular "so what?" 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.
 
you choose to exclude the most common empty chamber group, the military.

I know of no military personnel that stand a watch with a condition 3 sidearm, stateside or overseas. I know I never have. I have only carried a condition 1 sidearm while on duty/watch. And I am still active duty.
 
This is the only quasi justification (IMHO) to not carry a round in the chamber.
Noting that it is your opinion, I grant your right to that opinion<G>!
This is not a valid argument. This is neither an advantage or disadvantage, as to properly clear a weapon you have to rack lock the slide to the rear and you should never pull the trigger. So, have a round in the chamber would be about the same as not having a round in the chamber - only difference you either have to catch the round from the chamber or pick it up.
Very valid argument. Given the potential problems of bullet setback in some calibers, and given the fact that the most common time for an AD/ND, according to all of my literature, is when clearing or loading the weapon, reducing the problem is quite valid. Carrying chamber empty prevents these problems.
This is not a valid argument. If I chose to carry a gun with an external safety, the safety would be off anyway.
Very valid aragument. Just because that is the way you choose to carry does not make it the best way for others to carry.
More importantly, why would you carry a gun wherein "the safety is hard to get too or to operate."
Because you like the gun, you shoot it well, and you are able to bring it into action quickly and easily from a chamber empty condition, so the safety really doesn't matter that much.
If you can't manipulate a 1911, don't carry it - shoot by all means, but don't CCW.
No problem with manipulation. Draw, rack, fire. Folks have been manipulating the 1911 like that for decades.
This is not a valid argument. Don't carry a gun you find problematic.
Very valid argument. Nobody said to carry a gun you find problematic. The issue was one where the initial DA trigger pull was problematic. FWIW, this is a takeoff of a Jeff Cooper solution to the same problem.
This is not a valid argument. Yes, everything is situational.
Very valid argument. By your own admission it is situational. What makes you think that you (or anybody) knows more about the situation than the person who is living it?
I would like to read a situation that a chambered round was a disadvantage???
Already done that: "....guns that are not equipped with some of the more modern safety designs. Another might be if your situation requires you to load/unload a lot. Some guns the safety is hard to get too or to operate for some people. Others might find the first DA pull of a DA/SA gun to be problematic. Again, it is always situational. What is an advantage for one person in one situation might be a disadvantage for another person or in another situation." Don't like my version? Here. let's try a very popular wroter who I have a great deal of respect for: "Condition Three does have its place for carry, however. If I am carrying a gun like a Glock, which does not have a manual safety per se, and do not have access to a holster which covers the trigger guard (as is strongly recommended by the Glock factory), and have to shove the gun into my waistband, I'll make sure the chamber is empty."---Mas Ayoob, 2001. Mas goes on to say, "The first generation Smith & Wesson autoloaders, produced roughly from 1954 to 1980, theoretically can discharge if dropped hard enough with a live round in the chamber, unless the manual safety is engaged. There are several inexpensive pistols such as the Lorcin and the Raven, to name but two, floating around out there that do not have secure firing pin designs and can discharge from impact if struck or dropped. These should NEVER be carried with live rounds in the chamber. If one must use such a pistol, load only the magazine, and rack the slide to bring a cartridge into the chamber only when you perceive an immediate need to actually fire."
This is not an argument. Either method works fine, if, if, if, you do not have to employ your weapon.
Of course it's not an argument. It is a factual statement. If you don't need to employ your weapon not having a weapon is also a viable option, so I'm not sure what trying to discuss non-weapon issues has to do with this.

You, and others, seem to be arguing that since a new method has come along that reduces some of the problems of the past that the old method that worked so well suddenly is no longer working. That is wrong. Like I said, I tend to support chamber loaded carry, but if someone chooses not to do so they don't lose much, if any, SD capability.
 
Last edited:
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."
 
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
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top