Empty chamber equals paperweight.

Status
Not open for further replies.
To each their own, whether it's carrying with an empty chamber or safety on. Pretty hard to change anyone's mind, unfortunately. My carry guns don't have manual safeties and are ready to go, but that's me.
 
I don't disagree, but...

Citing a rare occurrence to "prove" that your way of doing things is the "right" way is a logical error. One could point to any number of "bathroom-oops" unintended discharges...

Utah teacher's gun fires accidentally in faculty bathroom

...or much more tragic events...

Toddler reaches into purse and gun goes off, killing mom

...and claim such incidents "prove" that carrying the gun with an empty chamber is the "right" way.

You are of course right to point out the possible (very bad) consequences of carrying chamber-empty, just as others would be right to point out the possible (very bad) consequences of carrying chamber-loaded. And all of us are right to weigh the pros and cons for ourselves, and decide.
 
If it is uncomfortable to carry a semi with a round chambered try a revolver.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
With all due respect Loosedhorse your comparing negligence (the people in your links should probably stick with a whistle to blow) to lack of training/maybe confidence in carrying a firearm.
What people need to realize is that you have seconds in a self defense situation. Stress drills are a real eye opener to help begin to understand tunnel vision/auditory exclusion, how your fine motor skills are effected (chambering that round) etc etc etc....
Unfortunately, Cyanides video is a text book ex. of those combined effects.
My advice to newer gun owners is to take a class, get comfortable with your firearm and after that I doubt you will have any questions about how you should carry.
 
Recall that, historically, single-action revolvers are usually carried hammer down on an empty chamber. For safety. All Colt-style single-actions (that is, without transfer bar) should still be carried that way.

It wasn't until the advent of concealed hammers and hammer-block safeties that it became safe to carry revolvers "fully loaded". The Colt Police Positive was called "positive" because of its (then new) hammer-block safety.

colt_police.jpg


There is a great apocryphal story about how, during a dinner party to celebrate the release of the brand-new Safety Hammerless (New Departure) revolvers, Dan Wesson handed a loaded New Departure to a boy who was serving the guests, to show how kid-proof it was.

Wesson asked the boy to try to fire the gun...and he did, putting a hole between Wesson's shoes, through his expensive oriental carpet.

So much for kid-proof.
 
Last edited:
Remember the old saying about a .22 in the pocket being better than a .45 in the truck. I want reasonably competent people to make a decision for themselves on the best method of carry suited to their unique situation.

This "need" towards elitism in the gun community, particularly the carry community, does not create more individuals who are part of it or who respect it without being part of it.
 
Last edited:
Telling ppl to carry with one in the chamber when they don't feel comfortable with it is foolish. :rolleyes: SAFETY FIRST! I would suggest to them get to know your weapon and to use the Israeli Draw. ;)
 
"Telling ppl to carry with one in the chamber when they don't feel comfortable with it is foolish. SAFETY FIRST! I would suggest to them get to know your weapon and to use the Israeli Draw"

Just my OPINION: No one should be carrying a gun for self defense if they're "not comfortable having it loaded" ---this includes a round in the chamber.

"the Israeli Draw" is the absolute definition of "escalating the confrontation".
There is no way to bring the gun into a firing condition from an empty chamber w/o blatantly displaying the gun and putting oneself into the role of aggressor should the situation turn out to be misinterpreted. In addition, if the user is "so uncomfortable" carrying a loaded pistol that they are not OK with a loaded chamber, there's a decent chance they will fumble the chambering sequence leaving themselves even more vulnerable than being w/o a gun at all.
 
your [sic] comparing negligence...
Click to expand...
We're all human beings, Lohman. Some of us even use "your" when we meant "you're". Mistakes can happen, if you're human.

Why have a drop safety on your gun, since only "negligent" persons drop their guns, right?

The standard dictum of safety systems today is to take a layered, multi-step approach: instead of just requiring one mistake to result in a disaster, let's make it two mistakes, or three, or four in a row that have to happen for a disaster to occur.

We've done that in firearms safety for a very long time. If you think about it, the rule, "Never let your muzzle cover anything you're not wiling to destroy"/"Always keep the muzzle pointed in a safe direction," covers it all--follow that rule, and no unintentional discharge can ever lead to injury or death. And yet, we're not satisfied with that rule: we add between 3 (Cooper) and 11 (NRA) additional rules.

Until humans stop making mistakes--and especially stop making them in the distress of a life-and-death emergency situation--having more rules than one is good. And yes, there is typically a balance between safety precautions and the ability to have the gun immediately available for emergency use.

Where that balance should rest is for the individual to decide, since he or she is the one who'll live with that decision. Or die with it.
:o

So I'm glad some guns have manual safeties; and some have magazine-disconnect safeties; and some guns have 8-lb triggers. That way each user can decide what works best for him/her, giving the best balance of safety and readiness.

Edit: Lohman has edited his post, removing the phrase I quoted. Still, I'll let the "response" I typed stand. And add:
This "need" towards elitism in the gun community...
Click to expand...
If you mean the "need" to tell others the "right" way to do things, I understand and share your concern.

Still, such recommendations come from a good place: from a desire to see gun-owners and their families remain safe.
 
Last edited:
Code: 
"the Israeli Draw" is the absolute definition of "escalating the confrontation".

No difference than you drawing your weapon

If you need to draw at all the situation is all ready bad ;)

Clearly you have not seen the "the Israeli Draw" in action. In one of my classes I took they taught you how to do it for the very reason some ppl don't like to carry one in the chamber.
 
We're all human beings, Lohman. Some of us even use "your" when we meant "you're". Mistakes can happen, if you're human.
Click to expand...

While I will admit to many many grammar errors in this particular case it was not my argument that compared negligence :).

My point is that in the gun community we seem to have this concept that this is the "right" way to do it and anyone who does it differently is not competent or has made bad decisions.

I'll use my own example: I carry a gun basically daily. It sits cocked and locked in a strong holster on my side. I am comfortable with my ability to use this gun and my knowledge of it (though that is fallible as found in another thread). I am also comfortable with my ability to deploy said weapon at contact distance if need be - though it would not be handy.

My wife carries a gun less often but still often enough. She is competent with the firearm. Her ability, at contact distance, to draw and fire this weapon regardless of condition is highly suspect as most attackers would overpower her physically. Managing to free either hand to get to a weapon is suspect. However her greatest concern is someone snatching one of the children. Her ability to draw a firearm at non-contact distance, manipulate the slide, and fire an accurate shot in a timely manner is reasonable.

Firearm retention favors strength. It also favors not being around children all the time. She is much more likely to lose her weapon to a non-hostile threat then I am. It is also much more likely said "threat" cannot manipulate the slide but could pull the trigger. She is also much less likely to be able to deploy a weapon, in any condition, at contact distance then I am.

It makes sense for her to carry in condition 3. Given the requirement to carry in condition 1 she would simply not carry and it would be a logical choice.

Yes we can discuss the benefits of different techniques. But when we do so in a way that dismisses the judgement of other competent individuals we risk alienating them even further. I can assure you there are a lot of people who do not post on gun boards who carry in condition 3.
 
Thanks for the expansion on your statement. I am in complete agreement; I hope your words are read and heeded.

Anyone's confidence in the approach that he himself has chosen is unsurprising; and it can be fun to be snarky. Still, we should all realize that sometimes snark (especially when it tips over to dismissiveness, as you say) can obscure any kindly meant, helpful message that was contained in the post.
 
Tragic video/event. I think this points directly to the facts, the ones some of us are for some strange reason STILL debating on. Always have a round in the chamber.

Negligent discharges do not happen on their own.

Common sense and practice will be more than enough to handle loaded firearms safely.

To any one who does not carry chambered, I would urge you to really think about that. To me its almost like leaving your gun at home.
 
Code: 
To any one who does not carry chambered, I would urge you to really think about that. To me its almost like leaving your gun at home

You have a right to your opinion but for the op to say it's a paper weight is just wrong! There are a lot of ppl some non members that come to this forum, that is why I stated other methods work just as well.
 
We're all human beings, Lohman. Some of us even use "your" when we meant "you're". Mistakes can happen, if you're human.
Click to expand...

Loosedhorse that was me you were trying to quote. If your (is that the correct use?) retort is to attack my grammar to what I thought I politely expressed my opinion have at it sir.
In reference to pushing certain carry methods, yeh, I am guilty of that. In the end, to each their own (I think I used their right).
 
For a short while after obtaining my carry permit I did carry with an empty chamber. After some training, I now carry condition one only. My several reasons for doing so are:

-- Few professional firearms instructors recommend the empty chamber method.

-- I realized that it is absolutely impossible for my gun to 'just go off' inside of a quality holster.

-- It is a very real possibility that I will not have sufficient time or ability to rack the slide in a deadly force situation.

I'm convinced that condition one is the best way to carry. BUT, If someone is uncomfortable carrying with a round chambered, the last thing I am going to tell them is to carrying with round chambered anyway. Ultimately, its a personal decision.
 
This is an endless debate.

Two things:

1. Carrying unchambered in modern times is an indication of lack of confidence in one's abilities. That can be changed by appropriate training. Decide if you want to engage in such. None of the recognized quality trainers recommends unchambered carry. That's that.

2. Second, endless arguments to display that you are a rhetorical genius in your own mind is a waste of time.

Thus, closed.

PS - after staff discussion, I want to clarify my close. The offending post was not the last ones in the discussion but my decision was based after reading #11.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top