Hmmm Maybe a thumb safety is not so bad....

Carrying unchambered is my preference. Using that logic one could argue that your gun is useless if its IWB of a tucked shirt, in a tight pocket, on your ankle, etc. because it might take you 2 extra seconds to get to it when needed. There are a million scenarios one can go through where what you are doing is not the best method for the given scenario. If anyone is concerned about having only one hand they should have a revolver because if your gun malfunctions, its not simple to clear that round with one hand - it might take too long. In fact, the one handed argument is a reason no one should probably have a pistol and we should all have revolvers. Too many what ifs to say what is right vs not.

And those stats of firing a gun one hand have nothing to do with how the gun was drawn and if a 2nd hand wasnt available...at least I just read its how it was fired, not drawn. Those can be two very different things or one in the same.
 
Last edited:
You are welcome to your opinion and carry the way you want to.

However, carrying a semi unchambered is seen by pretty much every expert as not wise. The Israeli example is a special case.

This is well discussed on every gun forum and in training sessions that have occurred in recent modern handgun self-defense analyses.

As far as one handed manipulation of a semi - been there with an injured hand, trained in how to do it. The advantages of chambered carry far outweigh unchambered carry.

Feel free to carry a revolver if you feel that is a better solution. You won't win this debate except as expressing personal preference based on your analysis of your own abilities.
 
Using that logic one could argue that your gun is useless if its IWB of a tucked shirt, in a tight pocket, on your ankle, etc. because it might take you 2 extra seconds to get to it when needed.
Click to expand...
No, that would not follow.

1. No one is saying your gun is "useless", just that you've unnecessarily delayed the time it will take to deploy it.

2. Since carrying unchambered is purely optional, the carry methods you describe would not be analogous to carrying unchambered unless you could easily and legally carry another way and intentionally choose to carry in a way that makes it harder to access your firearm.

3. Unless carrying those methods created a situation where it's necessary (or highly advantageous) to access the gun with both hands, they are not analogous to carrying unchambered.
In fact, the one handed argument is a reason no one should probably have a pistol and we should all have revolvers.
Click to expand...
There's an ex-FBI agent who spent some time paralyzed from the neck down because he couldn't reload his revolver with one badly injured hand. Had he been carrying an autopistol, he might have avoided the injury for two reasons:

1. He might not have run dry as soon and might have neutralized the man who shot him.

2. He might have been able to reload in spite of his injury and defended himself.

Nobody is going to stop you from carrying unchambered, and odds are, it won't ever be an issue because odds are you'll never need your gun. But if you ever do, you will have unnecessarily handicapped yourself.
 
adamBomb said:
...There are a million scenarios one can go through where what you are doing is not the best method for the given scenario....
Click to expand...
Something to consider if you are carrying your gun without a round in the chamber because of safety concerns. Your safety with your gun is entirely within your control. However, the circumstances under which you might need to use your gun in self defense will be decided largely by the person(s) who attack you.
 
I feel safe using a Glock in a kydex holster with a round in the chamber. I have two leather Galco holsters for AIWB carry. One is for a J frame and the other is for a G26. The J frame leather holster has seen heavy use but I just can't bring myself to use the AIWB leather holster for the Glock. I use a Kydex holster instead.

There aren't many good reasons to re-holster quickly in a self defense situation. No one ever won a gunfight by being the fastest person to re-holster.
 
I can't find the video, but a few years back there was a self-defense shooting at a gas station. Weapon was a G36 that the victim had in his center console. Perps were trying to drag him out of the vehicle by one of his arms when, with his other, he was able to get the pistol and fire at his assailants. I hate to think how that might have turned out if he didn't have one chambered.
 
Interesting comments. I'm sorry this challenge of thought hit too close to home for some.

I'm not really blaming anything on Glock although they did bring us the first 5-6lb trigger with no active safeties.

That has bit a couple of people publicly....I can think of ~5 that made news.

All have something that the person should have done better to avoid the situation.

I personally have no Glock issues. I fixed that by selling them off.

If you jumped on the not carrying loaded, please read the op as you missed any point I was trying to make.....I guess that is an option for some.
 
Glock has several "active" safeties, they just don't have a thumb or grip safety. And, imo, they still have a manual safety...the trigger safety. If it isn't depressed, the trigger can't move. Period. In your example, a faulty holster depressed the safety, and the trigger.

You say you're not blaming the Glock, so then what are you blaming? The worn out holster? The individual? No, all you mention is the Glock. Again, if the individual had done his part and maintained, and or replaced, his holster, your example would have never happened. But he didn't, and the holster did something it wasn't supposed to do. The firearm functioned perfectly.

Like you mentioned, you resolved your issue with Glock by getting rid of yours. The individual in your example doesn't have a Glock issue, he's got a failed Galco holster issue that was his fault.

As to the chambered/unchambered thing, to each their own. But I see zero reasons to carry and to do so with an empty chamber. Save a pre-transfer bar SA.

I wonder if one was able to go back in time, if there were discussions at the bar about how one's Colt, or S&W, was designed poorly due to a AD when a round went off under a hammer at rest?
 
I really liked my Glock 19.
But - almost every AD I read about seems to be a Glock.
I sold mine and am staying with Sig double single action.
Makes ME feel good.
Others miliage will vary of course.
 
Nathan, thanks for posting the link.

This is a good reminder of what can happen, I hope it saves someone some grief one day....
 
I've always wondered why Glock didn't offer a model with a manual safety. It seems they would have a whole new set of customers.

I'm a Glock guy at heart but my EDC is M&P9c with thumb safety. I like the option.
 
I'm not a Glock guy at heart...but care has to be taken, that no foreign objects {like wooden sticks} get lodged in a holster --- especially in a Glock holster --- that can trigger a negligent discharge; upon insertion of the pistol.

That is one of the reasons why I'm not Glock guy.
 
Glock has offered safeties to agencies that demanded such for their incompetent weapons users.

It's simple - if you don't feel safe with a weapon that just takes a trigger pull and no other manipulations, don't carry it.

BTW, I almost had my foot shot by a 1911 user who couldn't handle his gun with a manual and grip safety.
 
Pos7ed by adamBomb:
As a result, I have to practice drawing but I dont think racking the slide adds any time for those that practice it.
Click to expand...
I have trouble visualizing how adding an extra step in the process would not add time.
 
The Israeli types argue that you rack as you bring the gun to eye level, so you don't add time.

It has to be highly practiced and it still adds time for most, IIRC from folks who time such.

Our proponents of unchambered carry should watch folks screw up the rack or forget the safety. This is with skilled competitors and not just newbies.

How is the proponents automatic clearing routines? I've gone through a lot of training to handle the standard jams on Glocks and 1911s. Then you get the weird one ... :eek: Racking under stress increases such.

It's also like the fabled shotgun. Take a stress shotgun class - watch trained people screw up the pump.
 
I was 10 feet away from a guy on our pistol range, who almost shot his foot with his 1911, while on the concrete firing pad --- The bullet put a crater hole in the concrete. I warned the shooter not to put his finger inside the trigger guard while not aimed an ready to fire at the target. He kept performing the same error {finger inside the trigger guard while not on target}...so I reported his range badge number to the RSO.


Turns out...he borrowed the range badge from another member, and I got that member into range trouble --- A month later ---- A UPS guy shows up at my house front door, with a C.O.D. order, that held a package of 237 AK-47 firing pins, that was addressed to me but not ordered by me.

Now our range has photo I.D's for members.
 
Last edited:
Those who are careless and the inexperienced are most likely to have an accidental discharge. This applies to a Glock or any other type of firearm. The Glock has no safety and is therefore a little more dangerous to handle than a gun with a safety. Yes, it's operator error if you make it go bang by accident, but that's the reason guns have safetys. The safety must be released to pull the trigger. The glocks and Glock copies, you just pull the trigger.
 
To me, the important reminder in this story is that the gun is not the only component of the system that needs attention and maintenance. The holster matters, clothing matters, the belt matters, and thought and attention to what we are doing all matter. Thumb safeties are available on lots of models of guns for those who prefer them, but they are not a replacement for conscious thought about how we are handling our handguns, simply because they can fail or, more commonly, be accidentally left off. The results of supposing that you have some sort of fail-safe crutch that allows you not to think about what you are doing with your firearm can be far worse than what we saw in this instance.
 
mrray13 said:
Glock has several "active" safeties, they just don't have a thumb or grip safety. And, imo, they still have a manual safety...the trigger safety. If it isn't depressed, the trigger can't move. Period. In your example, a faulty holster depressed the safety, and the trigger.
Click to expand...

Let me define "active safety": An additional action to pulling the trigger to fire the firearm. By that definition, Glock has no active safeties.

BTW, I'm speaking of several incidents:
- this guy
- the officer reholstering n the gun store.
- the officer who had the kid reach in his holster and fire his duty weapon
- the dancing cop who had the AD in Detroit?? Killing the lady
- the officer in Cincinnati in the elevator
There migh be 1-2 more, I forget.


Let's get Glock out of the conversation.....let's say Joe's guns designs a gun. It is about the same size, shape, capacity, reliability, accuracy and durability as an XD9, M&P 9, or Glock 19. It has similar 5! internal passive safeties and a trigger face safety. Joe has so developed his internals that the trigger is 3 lbs, minimal pretravel, no over travel and it breaks like a glass rod. 1911 guys are blown away. Joe calls it the SSA Pro Carry. SSA stands for Super Safe Action. His ads all say when pro's carry, pro's carry the SSA Pro Carry. Joe is such a genius he gives out 100's of gun writer/blogger guns. They all sign a simple agreement saying they will describe the SSA talking points: 5 internal safeties + a trigger safety, a professional 3lb safe trigger pull, SSA assures the gun goes off only when you tell it to by pulling the trigger.

Would you buy it? Would it have the same, less or more AD incidents. Could it be manage by individuals effectively?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top