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.You brought up alternative versions of LCIs.
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.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.
Ah... Got it.To be honest your responses do come across, to me, as being against chamber checks in the instance of a pistol with a LCI.
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 was simply stating that despite the alternative LCI versions I prefer to do a chamber check.
Of course. It should always go without saying that voicing one's opinions does not constrain others to a particular course of action.If someone wants to do differently fine by me.
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 don’t really see what more there is to discuss along those lines.
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.
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.
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.
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 don't believe that it does.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.
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.
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.
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!
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 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.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 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.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?
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.I seem to remember a thread sometime back where someone noted Massad Ayoob having a ND with a revolver (no press checks there ).
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.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?
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.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?
People's perceptions may or may not be affected, but the math will tell 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.My experience is that the math will tell you the math, and it may, or may not be the truth.
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.We've all heard about how "engineers calculated" that the bumblebee cannot fly, but the bee doesn't know this, and flies, anyway.
That is not what the math said at all.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...
With my Glock 19, or 43X. My holsters allow me to feel the extractor sitting proud. Yes, round chambered. Next check? Fingertips, good.