Empty chamber is safer?
Not in my experience.
One of the chief rules of gun handling is to always presume the weapon is loaded and ready to fire. ("Treat all guns as loaded...")
During the Vietnam War (conflict, action, dust up - whatever) troops not in garrison carried personal weapons (rifles, submachineguns and pistols) loaded at all times until back at their 'home', when all was unloaded. One of the higher echelon commanders decided this was 'dangerous' and issued an order that troops under arms in convoy would stop prior to entering a 'friendly' zone and unload all weapons, transit the 'friendly' zone and then reload upon departing the zone. Accidental discharges (substitute whatever adjective you prefer) tripled. Other than presenting the weapon with the intention of firing, loading and unloading a weapon is the most dangerous action one can perform.
On the other hand, leaving a weapon loaded is a known risk. However, it is a 'known' risk, in that the armed party is aware - presumably watchful - of the risk.
A house gun is a firearm designated to be used in the event of emergency requiring deadly force. I find keeping such a weapon inert under such conditions to be counter productive.
Okay, we're all big kids here. You will all make up your own minds. I urge two considerations on this matter:
1. Make up your own mind for your own reasons. Don't slavishly do what some other 'authority' (including me) says. YOU will be the one answering for the results, either way.
2. Whatever you decide to do, commit yourself to a 'standing operating procedure' and always, always, always do it the same way. An emergency is a surprise by definition, one does not need another surprise to compound the matter.
Not in my experience.
One of the chief rules of gun handling is to always presume the weapon is loaded and ready to fire. ("Treat all guns as loaded...")
During the Vietnam War (conflict, action, dust up - whatever) troops not in garrison carried personal weapons (rifles, submachineguns and pistols) loaded at all times until back at their 'home', when all was unloaded. One of the higher echelon commanders decided this was 'dangerous' and issued an order that troops under arms in convoy would stop prior to entering a 'friendly' zone and unload all weapons, transit the 'friendly' zone and then reload upon departing the zone. Accidental discharges (substitute whatever adjective you prefer) tripled. Other than presenting the weapon with the intention of firing, loading and unloading a weapon is the most dangerous action one can perform.
On the other hand, leaving a weapon loaded is a known risk. However, it is a 'known' risk, in that the armed party is aware - presumably watchful - of the risk.
A house gun is a firearm designated to be used in the event of emergency requiring deadly force. I find keeping such a weapon inert under such conditions to be counter productive.
Far too many negligent or unintentional discharges happen as a result of 'unloaded' firearms for my taste.Manta49 said:No round in the chamber no chance of a N/D simple.
Okay, we're all big kids here. You will all make up your own minds. I urge two considerations on this matter:
1. Make up your own mind for your own reasons. Don't slavishly do what some other 'authority' (including me) says. YOU will be the one answering for the results, either way.
2. Whatever you decide to do, commit yourself to a 'standing operating procedure' and always, always, always do it the same way. An emergency is a surprise by definition, one does not need another surprise to compound the matter.