What is the ARGUMENT for why one in chamber is dangerous?

[JT1JT1]

Does anyone do it both ways?

i.e., carry an autoloader with a round chambered while outside CCWing, but keep the same gun in the house without a round chambered so that it is the same configuration as your "cruiser ready" shotgun?

 

[Yosemite Sam]

Does anyone do it both ways?

i.e., carry an autoloader with a round chambered while outside CCWing, but keep the same gun in the house without a round chambered so that it is the same configuration as your "cruiser ready" shotgun?

That just seems too confusing to me, especially when dealing with training and muscle memory. Consistency is key.

 

[DesmoDucRob]

Well you won't catch me without a chambered round in CCW, but for those who don't, I really don't have a problem with their decision as long as it in no way compromises safety. I guess it has been argued that leaving an empty chamber in CCW can put the carrier at a safety disadvantage, but I maintain that I don't care as long as a law-abiding citizen is carrying a firearm safely. I guess the point should also be made that safely and effectively can be one in the same when carrying CCW, but my concern is for the safety of others, not necessarily the handler.

 

[wrc376]

you are never going to find a consensus on this topic. for the record i carry a 1911 condition 3

 

[WalkAbout]

My personal view on this has changed over the years. When I first started carrying concealed, I never chambered a round, more or less out of fear. As I became accustomed to my firearm however, I have also become much more comfortable with it, and as a result have started carrying one in the pipe.

I'm now of the philosophy that if I'm carrying a firearm, I need to be able to use that weapon with one hand, possibly while fighting an assailant with the other if need be. If a confrontation gets very up close and personal very quickly, the need to chamber the round might end up getting me killed, possibly with my own gun. I find that to be particularly unacceptable.

Depending on the situation, weather, or my mood I either carry a Beretta 92FS with one in the chamber and the safety on or a Smith and Wesson 635 J-Frame, where the "one in the chamber" debate is a moot point. When I carry the Smith though, I carry the first two rounds as .38 +P JHP and the last three as .357 JHP.

My two cents.

Bdub

 

[butters]

This is a debate that will wage forever. I think that all three of the reasons for not carrying with a round in the chamber are all concerns for some folks.

Ultimately it is, and very well should be, the choice of the person carrying the weapon. If you are not comfortable with carrying "hot" and are aware of the potential consequences that may arise in a SD situation then go for it.

On the other hand most people carry their guns thousands of times without needing to actually use them for SD. Is it safer to carry without a round in the chamber? It probably is (how many ADs or NDs are there with an unchambered gun?) but when the time comes for you to use it will the extra time needed to rack the slide be enough? Only the gun owner can make this decision.

I carry both ways depending on the gun I am carrying and the situation. With my Bersa I can carrying chambered then decock and put on the safety. Flipping down the safety takes milliseconds and doesn't effect reaction time. When I carry my Ruger LCP I generally don't chamber a round because I don't have a proper holster that covers the trigger yet. That will likely change when I find a proper holster but the point is common sense, knowing the consequences for both options and doing what YOU feel most comfortable with is the right way to carry.

 

[B yond]

I'm afraid to carry a striker-fired pistol with one in the tube. I understand the various layers of safety on most of the new striker-fired models, but I just can't get comfortable carrying one. Maybe I'm just afraid the sear will fail. I don't know.

I wouldn't carry something that I'm afraid to carry with one in the chamber.

I carry autos with external hammers that fire DA/SA (and have safeties). I also carry a S/A minirevolver (which has a notch to rest the hammer in so it can't go off if you fall on the spur). I feel better about these.

I keep my HD shotty cruiser-ready but that's not so much because I'm afraid it will go off on it's own (it stays in a safe and isn't about to get dropped or bang on the pavement if I trip like a CCW is), but that's because I don't want it to be dangerous should my house catch fire. There was a fire at a neighbors house a while back and as the fire crew was standing on my roof surveying the blaze I realized they were standing directly over my safe where all my long guns are stored pointing skyward. Since then nothing in the chamber of those guns (I don't think anything cooking off in the mag would still be dangerous if it somehow made it through the safe walls).

 

[Frank Ettin]

All the Duke of Doubt's arguments notwithstanding, I wouldn't consider carrying without a round in the chamber. Doing so runs counter to the training I've had. I see no reason to count on having both hands available, or being otherwise able to rack the slide, in an emergency, not am I willing to count on having the time to do so.

 

[David E]

And that's what I would do, except that (1) for me, it wouldn't address my (admittedly unusual) situation of frequently loading and unloading the gun in a public place,

It seems to me this is a non-issue, really. Those places would expect folks to unload their gun, so you'd be just another guy doing what many others do.

(2) it doesn't address the risk, admittedly small but real, of an accidental discharge when the hammer is dropped using the decocking safety. I know, it's very rare, but it happens.

Perhaps you could cite a single instance of this happening? Presuming the person was diligent and checked his carry ammo for defects like high primers and kept his gun clean, how did it happen?

Evenso, if it truly bothers you, decock with one thumb while gently lowering the hammer with the other. See? No risk of accidental discharge.

Accurate and fast Double action shooting is not that difficult, it just takes a little practice.

.

 

[BBQLS1]

What good is a gun that isn't dangerous?

 

[mudriver]

During a previous war I was in I was surprised by the number of AD/ND's with pistols. If I'm doing something fairly active I carry with an empty chamber. If I'm driving or less active I'll put one in the chamber.

BTW - I don't think carrying a Glock with a round in the chamber is for the untrained/inexperienced.

 

[Geronimo45]

Perhaps you could cite a single instance of this happening? Presuming the person was diligent and checked his carry ammo for defects like high primers and kept his gun clean, how did it happen?

http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/...catalogId=10001&content=62303&sectionId=10506

 

[Duke of Doubt]

Yeah, the S&W fiasco is merely the latest. Walther's revolutionary P.38 Heerespistolen had the same charming affliction. It's endemic to the feature.

But don't you Glock fellows get too smug; striker-fired pistols are subject to spontaneous discharge if one small cheap part fails.

 

[scottgun]

But don't you Glock fellows get too smug; striker-fired pistols are subject to spontaneous discharge if one small cheap part fails.

Geez, you should really use an emoticon, its tough to tell when you are joking or just seriously misinformed.

Sorry, Glocks don't have cheap parts and they don't just spontaneously discharge. Glocks have a firing pin safety connected to the integrated trigger safety. You could slam a loaded Glock on to the pavement and it still will not go off (I haven't actually tried this, just going on that information of other more experienced Glock owners)
In addition the striker is cocked back only a fraction of the way, so if it did "slip" it wouldn't have enough force to ignite a primer.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

scottgun: "In addition the striker is cocked back only a fraction of the way, so if it did "slip" it wouldn't have enough force to ignite a primer."

Unless, for example, the gun's impact on concrete increased its momentum. It wouldn't "slip"; it would fly loose if one or more internal parts failed.

 

[scottgun]

Unless, for example, the gun's impact on concrete increased its momentum. It wouldn't "slip"; it would fly loose if one or more internal parts failed

The firing pin safety would prevent this. The only way it would happen is if you pulled the trigger while slamming it on the concrete.

In other words, the firing pin is not operable unless the trigger is pulled.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

And if it's the firing pin safety which breaks?

 

[scottgun]

Still have to pull the trigger. Glocks have redundant safety mechanisms that deactivate when the trigger is pulled.

DROP SAFETY
In the line of duty it may happen that a loaded pistol is dropped on the floor. Contrary to conventional pistols, the GLOCK drop safety prevents unintentional firing of a shot through hard impact. When the trigger is pulled, the trigger bar is guided in a precision safety ramp. The trigger bar is deflected from this ramp only in the moment the shot is triggered.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

I'll admit right here I'm not very familiar with Glock internals. I don't like them (Beretta Man here), so I haven't bought one, nor researched them much. That doesn't mean anything; they're pretty good pistols, from what I read. Just not my cup of tea.

That said, you seem to be describing a foolproof pistol, yet crammed chock full of Rube Goldberg-esque safety devices. That doesn't sound or seem right. So, never mind my above comments specifically. Can you give me a short paragraph explaining why Glock's design is safe? I've read their advertising copy and the enthusiast literature; I'm not talking about that "Glock precision" crap. I'm talking about the basic design and engineering, in gun language, rather than ad copy.

 

[Jeff White]

During a previous war I was in I was surprised by the number of AD/ND's with pistols.

I would say that has more to do with the sad state of firearms handling training in the military then the danger of carrying with a round in the chamber.

 

[David E]

I need a citation of an ACTUAL occurrence of an AD brought on by decocking the hammer via the decocking lever on a gun that's in good mechanical condition where the finger was not on the trigger.

Just because S&W issued a recall doesn't mean, for a fact, that there have actually BEEN any such AD's.

Further, I'm amazed that someone who admittedly doesn't know or understand the physical mechanics and limitations of a Glock and what it takes to actually fire one, still cites a 'spontaneous discharge' as an valid concern and therefore deems it "unsafe" to carry chamber loaded.

I better send out a memo to the 70% of the cops carrying one, lest it "spontaneously discharge" in their holster!!

And the bottom line still remains: if you're not comfortable with a (pick the gun) chamber loaded, then pick one that you ARE comfortable with chamber loaded.

Seems simple enough to me.

.

 

[B yond]

Just because S&W issued a recall doesn't mean, for a fact, that there have actually BEEN any such AD's.

But it does mean that they were concerned enough about the possibility of an AD to issue a recall, which is worth taking note of.

And the bottom line still remains: if you're not comfortable with a (pick the gun) chamber loaded, then pick one that you ARE comfortable with chamber loaded.

Now THAT hit the nail on the head.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Quote:
And the bottom line still remains: if you're not comfortable with a (pick the gun) chamber loaded, then pick one that you ARE comfortable with chamber loaded.

Now THAT hit the nail on the head.

And if you don't feel comfortable carrying any gun with a chambered round, then don't. Carry it unloaded. It is still a bit better to carry an unloaded gun than not carrying at all, and it doesn't affect me because I know the condition that my gun is in.

 

[David E]

And if you don't feel comfortable carrying any gun with a chambered round, then don't. Carry it unloaded. It is still a bit better to carry an unloaded gun than not carrying at all....

This reminds me of people seriously suggesting that if you must carry, then you should carry a completely empty gun.

They then cite statistics showing how often the miscreant is scared off merely by displaying the (empty) gun.

If you just "know" that you'll have the time and ability to chamber a round, that's fine. Me, I'm not that prescient.

Say, would you 'chamber-empty' guys share the lottery numbers coming up this week with the rest of us?

That'd be great !

.

 

[highorder]

Why do I get the feeling...

that someone that carries with an empty chamber will be put in a situation where they didn't have time to chamber a round and they end up getting killed or seriously injured...

... this will make great fodder for anti's. They will have a great example of how carrying a gun DOESN'T HELP.:banghead:

And the bottom line still remains: if you're not comfortable with a (pick the gun) chamber loaded, then pick one that you ARE comfortable with chamber loaded.

Absolute truth.