Cocked and locked baby!

[easyG]

The point some appear to be missing is that when the s..t hits the fan, it doesn't matter whether you are an 'average joe blo' or an elite special forces officer - If you are prepared to fight, (Gun with chambered round and ready to engage), you may win the fight. If you have to worry about chambering a round, you're toast! There is no effective alternative other than not carrying a weapon in my eyes. You either do it to be effective or don't do it.

I disagree.
When I was a Soldier in the Gulf War, we carried out rifles cocked-and-locked only when there was a reasonable chance of encountering the enemy...not all time, anywhere in theater.

I just don't see the need for the average Joe to carry locked-and-cocked in his home...especially when he has a very young child in his home.

Besides, it takes LESS than one second to chamber a round.
And if you keep the chamber empty, you can keep the safety off...so all you have to do is rack the slide and shoot.
If you don't have time to chamber the round and shoot, then I doubt if you would have had time to identify the threat, draw, and shoot accurately anyway.

 

[Lurper]

Which is more likely...

1) Your NEED to carry cocked-and-locked and be ready to engage attackers in a split second...

OR

2) The possibility of your kid, or anyone else, getting their hands on your pistol and shooting themself or someone else.

Based on the fact that firearms are used by civilians to stop crime more than a million times a year and only a handful of kids get their hands on a pistol and shoot someone or themselves, I'd have to say #1 is overwhelmingly more likely.

But in my suburban home with my children?

Because we all know nothing bad ever happens in the suburbs, right?

When I was a Soldier in the Gulf War, we carried out rifles cocked-and-locked only when there was a reasonable chance of encountering the enemy...not all time, anywhere in theater.

Irrelevant, because the organization which emplyed you dictated policy and that policy was not based on risk as much as liability. In other words, that organization didn't trust its rank and file members to be responsible enough to carry a loaded weapon.

Besides, it takes LESS than one second to chamber a round.

Less than a second gives me enough time to hit the target 6 times or more.

If you don't have time to chamber the round and shoot, then I doubt if you would have had time to identify the threat, draw, and shoot accurately anyway.

Fatal logic again. Often, there is not enough time to do anything other than shoot. Some people really don't grasp how quickly the scenario can go south. Sometimes they unfold slowly, sometimes they don't. The times that they don't don't allow enough time for racking the slide. Also, having to rack the slide just increases the chance for something to go wrong.

I'm not arguing the merits of carry C&L. Anyone is free to carry in any condition they are comfortable with. They assume the inherent risk. But to think that carrying in cond. 3 is as safe or effective as cond. 1 flies in the face of reality. You guys need to come back to earth and understand how these events can unfold.

 

[kayakersteve]

Lurper - Again, great summary. If I keep posting after you, I will never get carpal tunnel syndrome!

 

[vox rationis]

Well said Lurper and others promoting C&L/chambered carry.

I'm no authority, but logically, if based on your particular cost benefit analysis you have decided to carry the gun un-chambered, make sure you have a sturdy gun so that you can try to pummel your ambusher into submission when they get the drop on you because if you are within 7-10 yards of your attacker and the attacker knows what he's doing, I doubt you'll ever get a chance to do your double secret mall ninja rack and jack and deploy that weapon to save your life...and in this type of ambush scenario I don't think it'll be a "command" voice you'll be using, instead you'll be screaming for your life.

Even with a gun that's ready to shoot you are still on the wrong side of the reaction continuum against a determined attacker at most suburban distances, most experts use the 7-10 yard/meter rule. Having to chamber a round under stress, even assuming you don't botch the job, something quite likely I might add, adds precious time to your reaction continuum, and even a split second can mean the difference between life and death.

And just saying, well if they are that close then you are doomed anyway is like Lurper said, a fatalistic fallacy of reason. The point is, you want as much precious potentially life saving time available to you as possible while still keeping the weapon within its safety parameters (holstered and C&L with a 1911 style weapon). Instead of focusing on your fatalistic "oh well if they are that close anyway I'm doomed" you should refocus on "how can I carry this weapon safely but still maximize my speed in deploying safely", because yes, even a split second can mean the difference between life and death.

The one second to rack your slide (again if you don't botch it) is in practical reality an eternity, check out the knife vs gun video bellow, maybe it'll drive the point home:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...655&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=3

 

[easyG]

Based on the fact that firearms are used by civilians to stop crime more than a million times a year and only a handful of kids get their hands on a pistol and shoot someone or themselves, I'd have to say #1 is overwhelmingly more likely.

Be careful how you interpet the data...

Yes, many civilians use firearms to stop crimes, but how many of those firearms are single action pistols?
Rifles?
Shotguns?
And how many of those civilians keep their firearm lock-and-cocked 24/7?

I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of firearms owners, including the owners who stop crimes with their firearms, do not keep their weapons cocked-and-locked 24/7.

Besides, why take the chance?
Millions of folks use bleach every year without incident too...does that mean you leave bleach in easy access of small children?

Because we all know nothing bad ever happens in the suburbs, right?

Of course crime happens in the suburbs.
But the typical U.S. suburb is not an especially violent place.
If you feel the need to carry cocked-and-locked 24/7 in your own backyard, then maybe you should consider moving.
I grew up in a rough neighborhood where violence was not very uncommon.
But the neighborhood I live in now has not seen a violent crime in over 16 years.

Irrelevant, because the organization which emplyed you dictated policy and that policy was not based on risk as much as liability. In other words, that organization didn't trust its rank and file members to be responsible enough to carry a loaded weapon.

Simply not true.
We had magazines of ammo with us most of the time, but unless we were being deployed forward, or on perimeter guard, there really was no need to carry cocked-and-locked.

Less than a second gives me enough time to hit the target 6 times or more.

Fatal logic again. Often, there is not enough time to do anything other than shoot. Some people really don't grasp how quickly the scenario can go south. Sometimes they unfold slowly, sometimes they don't. The times that they don't don't allow enough time for racking the slide. Also, having to rack the slide just increases the chance for something to go wrong.

Care to give some real life example?

I think some folks on this forum really lose perspective.

If you live in an average U.S. neighborhood in the typical U.S. city or town, you simply don't need to carry locked-and-cocked 24/7, always ready to shoot someone six times in under a second.
And it's certainly not worth the risk if you have small children in the house.

 

[easyG]

I'm no authority, but logically, if based on your particular cost benefit analysis you have decided to carry the gun un-chambered, make sure you have a sturdy gun so that you can try to pummel your ambusher into submission when they get the drop on you because if you are within 7-10 yards of your attacker and the attacker knows what he's doing,...

If your attacker "knows what he's doing", and get's the drop on you, you'll never even know it....you'll just be dead or unconscious, cocked-and-locked or not.

But again, the average U.S. citizen does not have to worry much about ninjas jumping from the roof or from the shadows in a surprise attack.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Since most DGUs have no shots fired, I recommend keeping the gun unloaded for safety.

Many children have taken the guns from out of their parents' holster off their belt and then shot the family poodle.

One always has time to load the gun in a crisis.

 

[ATW525]

What does condition 1 vs condition 3 have to do with child safety?? If your idea of "child safing" your firearm is to not carry one in the chamber, then you need to sell your firearms before you get somebody killed. Simply keeping an empty pipe just doesn't cut it.

If you are properly securing and maintaining control over your weapons then it doesn't matter if you have a round in the chamber or not, because unauthorized people will not have access. If you're not capable of properly securing and maintaining control of your firearms, then I suggest doing people a favor and trading them in for airsoft replicas, water pistols or nerf dart shooters that don't require to same level of responsable ownership as real firearms.

 

[Lurper]

Yes, many civilians use firearms to stop crimes, but how many of those firearms are single action pistols?

Irrelevant unless you are claiming that a SA is somehow less safe with a round in the chamber than ony other type of action, which frankly, is absurd.
What would be relevant is how many had loaded guns or guns that could be employed immediately without having to rack the slide.

And how many of those civilians keep their firearm lock-and-cocked 24/7?

Again irrelevant. The op was talking about carrying C&L primarily. Unless you are trying to say that a SA is more dangerous with a round in the chamber - see above.
Storing a weapon should be the same whether it is single action or not. If you have children in the house, secure it in a safe. Or, do what I do; keep it on my person. That way I know who is in direct control of it. You're taking no more chance with SA than any other action.

But the typical U.S. suburb is not an especially violent place.
If you feel the need to carry cocked-and-locked 24/7 in your own backyard, then maybe you should consider moving.
I grew up in a rough neighborhood where violence was not very uncommon.
But the neighborhood I live in now has not seen a violent crime in over 16 years.

More fatal logic. It only needs to happen once - to you!

We had magazines of ammo with us most of the time, but unless we were being deployed forward, or on perimeter guard, there really was no need to carry cocked-and-locked.

Need had nothing to do with it. It was SOP dictated by your chain of command. Also fatal logic by assuming rear or secure areas are "safe".

Care to give some example?

Sure, here are a couple of easy ones to check. Richard Davis, Helen Weathers, Tom Yuhr, check out The Ayoob Files.

As far as perspective goes, I carry, train, sell and teach with firearms every day. I have BTDT on more than one occasion. I have contact with people who have BTDT. I have a good perspective on the big picture. I'm not saying you're crazy if you don't want to carry. What I'm saying is you're crazy if you think that carrying or keeping a SA auto C&L is less safe or if you think that every situation is going to unfold slowly enough for you to rack the slide before employing your firearm.

 

[parrothead2581]

+1 Atw525

 

[easyG]

Irrelevant unless you are claiming that a SA is somehow less safe with a round in the chamber than ony other type of action, which frankly, is absurd.

Yes, a cocked SA pistol is more dangerous around children than a DA/SA or DAO pistol.
Nobody ever intentionally leaves their handgun where a child can find it...but it happens all the time.
Humans make mistakes.
And even a very small child can manipulate the safety and pull the trigger on a SA pistol...it takes virually no finger strength at all.
But it is very difficult for a small child to rack the slide of a pistol and chamber a round.
It's simply not worth the risk to your family and child.

More fatal logic. It only needs to happen once - to you!

And a child only needs to get his hand on your cocked-and-locked pistol ONCE.

Yes, by all means, keep your firearms away from children.
But humans make mistakes.
All it takes is to be forgetful just once.
Or to be distracted just once.

Need had nothing to do with it. It was SOP dictated by your chain of command. Also fatal logic by assuming rear or secure areas are "safe".

SOP for a good reason.
The chances of encountering the enemy in secure areas is extremely remote.
AND in the event that the enemy does strike in a secured area, it only takes a couple of seconds to lock and load.
As I said, while in the rear we had the loaded magazines with us, just not in our rifles...it's not like we had to run to the arms room to get them.

I have never seen any shooting situation where the threat did not present itself until it was too late to even rack the slide of a pistol.

I have seen cases where a person did not RECOGNIZE the threat until it was too late...but carrying cocked-and-locked would not have saved them either.

 

[parrothead2581]

If you have children, keep the pistol on your person until you go to bed.

I'm with Col Jeff Cooper on this one. Cond 1 is the most sensible way to carry a 1911.

Doesn't the existence of a thumb safety say it was designed to be carried in condition 1?

Hope your hand doesn't slip when you really need to rack that slide.

 

[Lurper]

I obviously have too much time on my hands today.

Yes, a cocked SA pistol is more dangerous around children than a DA/SA or DAO pistol.

Unless you want to split hairs, that just isn't true. Yes, it takes less strength, but a 5+ year old will be able to pull the trigger on most guns. They will also have the strength to cock the hammer on a SA/DA or revolver. You cannot eliminate every possibility, you can only cover so many. You hit the nail on the head - humans are the weak link, not the firearm.

It's simply not worth the risk to your family and child.

IMO, it's not worth the risk to my family or children to carry cond 3.

SOP for a good reason.
The chances of encountering the enemy in secure areas is extremely remote.
AND in the event that the enemy does strike in a secured area, it only takes a couple of seconds to lock and load.

The "good reason" that SOP exists has nothing to do with the likelihood of encountering the enemy. It exists because the level of training for the average soldier is so low that too many ad/nd happen. Again, it exists because the organization does not trust its members to walk around with loaded weapons. Sure if you are in a "secure" area and are engaged by a sniper it only takes a couple of seconds to charge your weapon. That's fine as long as you are not the first target of a competent sniper.

I have never seen any shooting situation where the threat did not present itself until it was too late to even rack the slide of a pistol.

Then you haven't seen many. I gave you a couple of quick examples. I have lived through a couple myself and have friends who have. If you do some basic research, you will find that the situation does not always unfold that way.

I have seen cases where a person did not RECOGNIZE the threat until it was too late...but carrying cocked-and-locked would not have saved them either.

Again, not true. Read Mas' account of the incidents I posted previously. Sometimes the situation is thrust upon you. I wouldn't beat you up about it so much except for the fact that it is fatal logic. Carrying in condition 3 is like saying you should carry your revolver empty with a speedloader because you will always have time to load before you need to fire. That type of thinking will get you killed.

 

[easyG]

You cannot eliminate every possibility, you can only cover so many.

Right.
And that's why it makes sense to keep the chamber empty around your kids.

IMO, it's not worth the risk to my family or children to carry cond 3.

You must live in a really dangerous place for you to believe that carrying with a empty chamber and loaded magazine is risking the lives of your family.

The "good reason" that SOP exists has nothing to do with the likelihood of encountering the enemy. It exists because the level of training for the average soldier is so low that too many ad/nd happen. Again, it exists because the organization does not trust its members to walk around with loaded weapons.

Not true.
IF that were the case they would not have let us even have the loaded magazines.
And they would not have dictated a lock-and-load SOP when leaving the camp, which they did.

Sure if you are in a "secure" area and are engaged by a sniper it only takes a couple of seconds to charge your weapon. That's fine as long as you are not the first target of a competent sniper.

Again, it's all about the odds of encountering the enemy.
In areas where snipers are a reasonable possibility, you carry locked-and-loaded, and even that aint going to save you if you're the first target of a competent sniper.

But you have to ask yourself, is there a reasonable chance of a sniper attacking you at your home in the city or suburbs?

Carrying in condition 3 is like saying you should carry your revolver empty with a speedloader because you will always have time to load before you need to fire. That type of thinking will get you killed.

Not even remotely comparable.

I'm not saying that you should never carry cocked-and-locked.
There are times when it is the smart thing to do.

But if you really feel the need to carry cocked-and-locked while walking in your own backyard or through your own neighborhood, then you really should find a better place to raise your children.

 

[newarcher]

EasyG,

You are as wrong as wrong can possibly be.

The issue of cocked and locked isn't about the odds of you encountering the enemy...which may be small. The issue is about the odds of losing precious time if you ever have to use your gun....which at the time of use is 100%.

Up to the point of having to pull the gun and use it, you might as well be carrying a brick. Once you reach the point of needing to pull it/use it, your argument falls flat on its face.

I have read articles by criminals that state that they intentionally go to places where people are at ease and less likely to be armed.

Anyway, carry it any way you like. I am not telling you to carry it cocked and locked....I am telling you that if and when someone decides to attack you, it will be 100% a surprise.

New

 

[easyG]

The issue of cocked and locked isn't about the odds of you encountering the enemy...which may be small. The issue is about the odds of losing precious time if you ever have to use your gun....which at the time of use is 100%.

Maybe you did not read all of this thread?

It's about weighing the risks of keeping a cocked-and-locked SA pistol in a home with children vs carrying a pistol with a loaded magazine and empty chamber.

If you live alone with no kids, or if you're married to a wife who knows how to shoot and have no kids, then I would see nothing wrong with keeping your pistol cocked-and-locked.
But if you have children in the house it's just not worth the risk.

I have read articles by criminals that state that they intentionally go to places where people are at ease and less likely to be armed.

Just because you're not carrying cocked-and-locked it does not mean that you're "at ease" and unarmed.
Now THAT'S a fatal assumption!

 

[vox rationis]

f your attacker "knows what he's doing", and get's the drop on you, you'll never even know it....you'll just be dead or unconscious, cocked-and-locked or not.

But again, the average U.S. citizen does not have to worry much about ninjas jumping from the roof or from the shadows in a surprise attack.

No, but the average US citizen does have to worry about a criminal bent on brutalizing and robbing him/her jumping out of the bushes in a surprise attack. That's what criminals do, they mostly attack by surprise. And even if it is an unplanned attack of opportunism, say some guy decides to intimidate/attack you at the ATM, or in a parking lot, chances are high that he'll be able to approach you to within conversational distance, or close thereto. If he wants to place your safety in danger, having to fumble with racking the slide considerably lessens your chances of being able to use your gun successfully for self-defense.

And as far as their skill is concerned, I think it is better to assume that the attacker "knows what he's doing" because more often than not they do know what they are doing, they are criminals, and I for one wouldn't want to be hopeful that they are weak understudies, chances are, they've done this before. What is it, like 15% of the criminals do 80% of crimes or something like that.

Lastly, based on the latest FBI data on armed criminals:

--show signs of being armed that officers miss;

--have more experience using deadly force in “street combat” than their intended victims;

--practice with firearms more often and shoot more accurately;

--have no hesitation whatsoever about pulling the trigger. “If you hesitate,” one told the study’s researchers, “you’re dead. You have the instinct or you don’t. If you don’t, you’re in trouble on the street….”

http://www.policeone.com/writers/columnists/ForceScience/articles/1243754/

So we aren't cops and hopefully we can avert confrontations with these very dangerous criminals that will also hopefully not choose to target us (it is better to be lucky than good), but if you carry a gun to protect your life wouldn't you want to carry it in a safe method that also allows you to deploy it in the safest AND quickest manner possible? If not, what's the point of even carrying the weapon, unless in an extremely low threat area, and even then, if you are trained, which you should be, and the gun is carried in a proper and safe manner, which should be the case, why not carry it C&L?

I can't think of one good argument against carrying C&L, except for not doing so in your house if you have kids that are too young or unreliable to be educated and trained, in which case a safety lock box would be the better option anyway, and in that case one might opt for C&L anyway since the gun will be in the lock box. Or if you carry it relatively unsecured in Mexican Carry or in a brief case or something.

 

[Lurper]

You must live in a really dangerous place for you to believe that carrying with a empty chamber and loaded magazine is risking the lives of your family.

Where I live has nothing to do with it. The fact that I have been in more than my share of confrontations has everything to do with it. In an armed confrontation, every milisecond counts. The amount of time it takes to rack the slide can make the difference between life and death.

Maybe you did not read all of this thread?

It's about weighing the risks of keeping a cocked-and-locked SA pistol in a home with children vs carrying a pistol with a loaded magazine and empty chamber

Since he is the original poster, I think he probably has a good grasp of what the issue is. They are two seperate issues which you are now blurring. Again, there is no evidence to support the contention that:

C&L is less safe than any other type of action w/a round in the chamber

SA autos are less safe in storage than any other type of action

That every situation unfolds slowly enough that you will have the luxury of time enough to rack the slide before you need to shoot.

That by carrying C&L I am somehow putting myself and family at greater risk.

There is no need to carry in "nice neighborhoods" (like to ask Sharon Tate?).

Your argument just doesn't hold water.

 

[easyG]

Never mind.

 

[parrothead2581]

If in public it's C&L. I believe that was the main point of this thread.

At home with kids in the house and you don't conceal it on you ...well, I may have to give that one to easyg, but only because of the lack of responsibility of, unfortunately, a lot of folks.

If a gun is loaded, it's either on my person, or locked away. I'm not much for loading and unloading everyday as that would only seem to increase your chances of an ND.

Funny how I got the latest issue of Guns and Ammo today and it addresses that same topic (home storage).