PDA

View Full Version : Carry without a round in a chamber = FAIL


Pages : 1 [2]

Spirit 1
04-11-2011, 8:00 AM
A pretty lousy analogy, however. A different machine, a different use, a different purpose and used in different circumstances.

Any type of gun has certain design limitations (and advantages) which must be considered when choosing one for a particular purpose.

Forget the facts, your mind is made up, huh? I sincerely hope there's nobody here on the forum who thinks that guns & Jeeps are the same things. But what part of your comment adds anything useful to this discussion, and what was added? Maybe just trying to whittle away at my public appearance & reputation, to make me out as a fool, thinking it therefore proves your case? It doesn't.

fiddletown
04-11-2011, 8:09 AM
...What's the difference time-wise in racking or hammering back? What happens when you rack the slide, or thumb back a hammer? Do both prepare the gun to fire?...When cocking the hammer on a single action revolver on the draw stroke, which can be done one-handed with the strong hand thumb, the hammer is cocked as the gun is brought to bear on the target and is then in a cocked state as soon as it is on target. If you study the various videos that have been posted in this thread of people racking the slide on a semi-auto, you will see that the slide is being racked while the pistol is pointed at the target. So the gun is on target and still must be made ready to fire, and there is, therefore, some delay before the gun can be fired.

...There's also nothing that guarantees that Con 1 carry guarantees total & complete protection of yourself & others...There are no guarantees about anything, There are simply more efficient or less efficient ways of doing things.

...There are circumstances where Con 1 is unwarranted, or impractical or the second best choice for carry....To you perhaps. Actually, and this may surprise you, I would agree that C3 is a better idea for off-body carry, or pocket carry without a holster (although I still would not carry a 1911 type pistol in my pocket cocked and locked, even in a holster) and probably for Mexican carry as well. But those are "specialized" forms of carry for unique circumstances.

...Therefore I choose to act as the situation dictates, and may carry Con 1 or Con 3, considering myself well protected in any event, if I stay completely aware of those events and respond accordingly.You are of course free to carry however you choose for whatever reasons you choose. I am not convinced. I do not think your reasons are good ones. And I have no intention of even considering doing things your way.

Spirit 1
04-11-2011, 8:16 AM
Man you come up with horrible examples lol The times I've had to load, unload, holster and unholster 100's of times in a weekend was during a class setting under a semi-controlled environment on a range with a huge backstop. That is not even remotely the same as the example you gave where you change from C3 to C1 and back again while driving into town and back.

You can think you have brains or not but some bullets may set back as early as 3 or 4 chamberings so with your example you may need to rotate your carry bullets out weekly.

First, I never said I change up WHILE DRIVING into town. Fact is there is a wide turnout, and a whole bunch of mountain for a backstop, where I prepare the gun, very safely.

Regarding setback, you failed to make a point, because yet again you assumed. The assumption is incorrect, because of my circumstances. I may shoot those daily because I'm able to shoot daily here, or shove a 'used' cartridge out of clip & replace with new just as daily.

However, though it's physically possible, as another of the "What if's" frequently tossed out as some kind of proof here, I haven't found any appreciable bullet setback to date. That is, unless another 'What if' has occurred and my digital caliper failed me in measurements.

Once again, there's no universal rules positively determined as the only facts in this discussion. I choose to carry in both conditions and it works very well for me.

fiddletown
04-11-2011, 8:27 AM
First, I never said I change up WHILE DRIVING into town. Fact is there is a wide turnout, and a whole bunch of mountain for a backstop, where I prepare the gun, very safely....Nonetheless, it is desirable, when carrying a gun out and about, to minimize administrative manipulations of the gun.

Spirit 1
04-11-2011, 8:33 AM
When cocking the hammer on a single action revolver on the draw stroke, which can be done one-handed with the strong hand thumb, the hammer is cocked as the gun is brought to bear on the target and is then in a cocked state as soon as it is on target. If you study the various videos that have been posted in this thread of people racking the slide on a semi-auto, you will see that the slide is being racked while the pistol is pointed at the target. So the gun is on target and still must be made ready to fire, and there is, therefore, some delay before the gun can be fired.

There are no guarantees about anything, There are simply more efficient or less efficient ways of doing things.

To you perhaps. Actually, and this may surprise you, I would agree that C3 is a better idea for off-body carry, or pocket carry without a holster (although I still would not carry a 1911 type pistol in my pocket cocked and locked, even in a holster) and probably for Mexican carry as well. But those are "specialized" forms of carry for unique circumstances.

You are of course free to carry however you choose for whatever reasons you choose. I am not convinced. I do not think your reasons are good ones. And I have no intention of even considering doing things your way.

I don't actually care what is shown in a couple of videos, showing how some people choose to work their guns. I'm not those people. Also I learned how to operate many weapons many, many years ago, so I'm familiar with how they work.

The choices are not only restricted by 'More efficient' or 'Less efficient', as there are many additional parameters that come into play, which is a large part of the points I've been making. It's not ALL about fastest & 'Most efficient'. Seems some folks are entirely unable to understand that.

Regarding your next comment, my personal decision is to adapt to circumstances and stay completely aware of those circumstances at all times. By that I have remained safe, well protected, well prepared, and able to address whatever situation may materialize.

Finally, I have not attempted to convince you to do anything 'my way'. My sole intent is to show that there are other viable, practical, effective, safe, sensible solutions to the complexities of carrying a defensive weapon in addition to 'Condition 1 ONLY' thoughts.

We're in total agreement that defensive carry in some form is a very, very good idea in today's world. Either of us would quickly welcome the other's personal choice for method of carry if some additional backups were suddenly needed when circumstances got real hot.

Spirit 1
04-11-2011, 8:38 AM
Nonetheless, it is desirable, when carrying a gun out and about, to minimize administrative manipulations of the gun.

True! The best I can ever do is to do my best in whatever circumstances occur.

ZombieTactics
04-11-2011, 9:05 AM
... The choices are not only restricted by 'More efficient' or 'Less efficient', as there are many additional parameters that come into play, which is a large part of the points I've been making. It's not ALL about fastest & 'Most efficient'. Seems some folks are entirely unable to understand that. ...
As an aside, I've been in more than one training class with some "expert" who gives the "C1 ALWAYS" speech ... flabby-armed, triple-chinned, gut flab hanging over his holster. I have to choke back a chuckle.

sava
04-11-2011, 9:41 AM
Zombie and Fiddle, I hope you are both happy with your attempt to win a moot case against the other. None of your well written and intelligent posts added any insight into the topic and both of you come off as pathetic.

To each his own, and you boys should have left it at that. Condition of carry is completely up to the individual.

fiddletown
04-11-2011, 10:08 AM
...The choices are not only restricted by 'More efficient' or 'Less efficient', as there are many additional parameters that come into play, which is a large part of the points I've been making. It's not ALL about fastest & 'Most efficient'. Seems some folks are entirely unable to understand that....Sorry, but I disagree. The mechanical issue, how the gun is carried in a proper, well designed holster, is a matter of more efficient or less efficient, as long as the gun and carrying equipment are safe, and the individual is trained and skilled in its use (and if he is not, he ought to be seeking training and developing his skills).

The "other parameters" are mental. Situational awareness, assessing the environment, understanding and acting in a manner consistent with the legal, moral and ethical requirements on, and limitations of, the use of force, are mental issues. They are matters of training and education. They are more important than the tools. They are also, in my experience, regrettably less thought about than questions related to the tools.

k1dude
04-11-2011, 10:09 AM
But in some folk's statements here & elsewhere I see a very aggressive note to that decision of Con 1, and that also comes through their instantaneous reactions of very insulting or antagonistic comments aimed & fired at anybody & everbody who simply disagrees. It's obvious in those comments that the person hasn't been able to cooly & soberly analyze the situation of another person's viewpoints and decides instead to draw and pull the trigger before they even understand what the other person is actually saying & doing. That tells me that not only the gun is cocked & locked, but so are their thoughts & emotions. "You talkin' to me...?!!" was the movie line.

One must train, practice and remain proficient, and prepared. But you know too, there's the guys that sit home alone practicing their skills, while imagining they're blasting away all the imagined hordes of bad guys into Kingdom come, saving the day & the planet, far more into delusions of a movie hero in viewpoint and mindset. They rehearse their favorite fantasies over & over, shouting "Bang bang bang!" as they cavort, telling themselves it's training. In fact, it's much more likely a problem they ought to seek professional help to solve, before they kill some innocent people! Their gun is not a defensive weapon at all, but instead their future chance to really be somebody, whom others will deeply respect and humble themselves before in awe at the feet of their heroic acts. But I digress...

Are you even a gun owner? I suspect you aren't after comments like that. I suspect you're a Brady plant.

First, I see no indication whatsoever in this thread of comments like you claim. Second, you are implying most of the gun owners posting here are Rambo wannabees. Third, many of us posting in this thread carry on a daily basis, we do not have a hidden desire to kill people. If we did, where is the bloodbath that the anti's have always claimed will happen? We carry because we want to stay alive by protecting ourselves. We don't have these insulting hidden fantasy's that you claim. There is enormous responsibility in carrying a weapon. Every single last one of us hopes and prays we NEVER have to use it. NONE of us here take that lightly. Your post and your attitude make me sick.

ZombieTactics
04-11-2011, 10:11 AM
Zombie and Fiddle, I hope you are both happy with your attempt to win a moot case against the other. None of your well written and intelligent posts added any insight into the topic and both of you come off as pathetic.

To each his own, and you boys should have left it at that. Condition of carry is completely up to the individual.

I thank you for the critique and note that I generally agree with your last statement.

( BTW ~ Are you a senior yet? Are you still living at home or have they kicked you out yet? )

sanjosebmx
04-11-2011, 10:13 AM
When carrying on the way to town I choose Condition 3. If a mechanical failure or blowout sends me over the side the last other thing I want to worry about is an AD shooting myself in the impact of rolling & tumbling down the cliff. Condition 3 carry is safer. As I approach town the road becomes much more manageable so I have plenty of time to go to Condition 1 if needs be.


http://www.slicky.net/smilies/rofl.gif Oh man! I'm glad I came back in to read this! Is this the best example of a situation where C3 is warranted?

Billy

the LOL turbines have kicked into full throttle now...

DannyZRC
04-11-2011, 10:19 AM
I won't insult you spirit, but I think being worried about an AD if you go over the edge of the road is 2 things.

#1, I don't think you need to worry about an AD in that situation, I think most any modern pistol is safe for 30-60 seconds of random tumbling.

#2, not to be morbid, but if you're going over the cliff, I don't think being shot changes your odds of survival very much in the astronomically unlikely event that it occurs.

k1dude
04-11-2011, 10:24 AM
As an aside, I've been in more than one training class with some "expert" who gives the "C1 ALWAYS" speech ... flabby-armed, triple-chinned, gut flab hanging over his holster. I have to choke back a chuckle.

And I've shot with a bunch of SF, CIA, and ex-Seals, ex-SF, ex-Delta Force, and ex-CIA members who all used to carry C1 and continue to preach so. To this day most are still ripped with less body fat than I have in my thumb. So your point is?

wu_dot_com
04-11-2011, 10:26 AM
Zombie and Fiddle, I hope you are both happy with your attempt to win a moot case against the other. None of your well written and intelligent posts added any insight into the topic and both of you come off as pathetic.

To each his own, and you boys should have left it at that. Condition of carry is completely up to the individual.

i personally appreciate them to give a genuine effort in presenting the argument. to me, it takes a lot of them to be able to withstand those insults they received w/o loosing their cool. i for one cannot tolerate some of those insults they've been getting.

i dont think they come off as pathetic at all. some members may tried to paint their views in such a way w/o giving substantial backup. but those are the same irrational members that will never get the underlying points they were trying to convey.

ZombieTactics
04-11-2011, 10:26 AM
And I've shot with a bunch of SF, CIA, and ex-Seals, ex-SF, ex-Delta Force, and ex-CIA members who all used to carry C1 and continue to preach so. To this day most are still ripped with less body fat than I have in my thumb. So your point is?
^^ My point is that some people have a lot more to worry about than their condition of carry. I find it silly for someone to lecture me about condition of carry when they appear to be about one 30-yard jog away from cardiac arrest. I imagine the conditions of your friends employment dictates their condition of carry. The conditions of my life dictate mine.

Are you a ninja? Do you work at a mall? Just kidding ... I train with people like that sometimes too, but you have to know how those kinds of statements come across sometimes.

k1dude
04-11-2011, 10:34 AM
i personally appreciate them to give a genuine effort in presenting the argument. to me, it takes a lot of them to be able to withstand those insults they received w/o loosing their cool. i for one cannot tolerate some of those insults they've been getting.

i dont think they come off as pathetic at all. some members may tried to paint their views in such a way w/o giving substantial backup. but those are the same irrational members that will never get the underlying points they were trying to convey.

??? It goes both ways. I don't know if you've noticed, but most of us have conceded the point that there may be times where C3 could be warranted. And most of us have agreed it's a personal choice whether wise or not. To each his own. And if you didn't notice, most of the blatant insults have come from the 2 antagonists. So why do you see it differently? Is your own personal bias influencing your take on this thread?

wu_dot_com
04-11-2011, 10:34 AM
I won't insult you spirit, but I think being worried about an AD if you go over the edge of the road is 2 things.

#1, I don't think you need to worry about an AD in that situation, I think most any modern pistol is safe for 30-60 seconds of random tumbling.

#2, not to be morbid, but if you're going over the cliff, I don't think being shot changes your odds of survival very much in the astronomically unlikely event that it occurs.

#1, its assuming he is carrying anything with a automatic FP block. if he were carrying a series 70 1911, or a Springfield 1911 (i think they are pretty modern) he is SOL.

#2 good point, but why stack the odd against you when there is no perceive benefit carrying in C1? i think his point was that carrying C1 in some situation have no added benefit and in some situation it may be a liability.

Cali-Shooter
04-11-2011, 10:37 AM
Ideally, you'd always want to carry with one "in the hole." However, under normal circumstances (non-emergency) I personally would never do so (with a non-external safety handgun), if I wasn't equipped with the proper means to have my carry handgun in that configuration. If I were to carry a Glock or other "trigger safety" handgun, I would make sure I have it holstered in a Kydex or other non-permeable material holster which covers the trigger guard, and then have it in loaded chamber configuration.

wu_dot_com
04-11-2011, 10:42 AM
??? It goes both ways. I don't know if you've noticed, but most of us have conceded the point that there may be times where C3 could be warranted. And most of us have agreed it's a personal choice whether wise or not. To each his own. And if you didn't notice, most of the blatant insults have come from the 2 antagonists. So why do you see it differently? Is your own personal bias influencing your take on this thread?

you and other members who understand and respect the point they are trying to make are not the type of members that i am referring to :).

they have only been fighting back those insults in the last few pages of the argument.

perhaps i am bias which is why my opinions leans towards them. but this is just my observation from reading every post of this thd.

ZombieTactics
04-11-2011, 10:43 AM
... I don't know if you've noticed, but most of us have conceded the point that there may be times where C3 could be warranted. ...
Actually, fiddletown has finally even admitted this, which causes me to wonder what he thought he was arguing against in the first place.

... most of the blatant insults have come from the 2 antagonists. ...
That may be true ... certainly could be seen that way. For my part I'd offer that I think that saying "your argument contradicts itself" is in a completely different category than labeling someone a coward over their carry-condition choice. I certainly mean no insult with the former statement, but I find it difficult to see how the former could be considered anything else.

I choose not to escalate at this point. I find the man's style of discourse contradictory and irrational. He may think I am an idiot. I think we're both man enough to really not care much in either respect, lol ... and probably not with much in the way of any genuine animosity.

Lead Waster
04-11-2011, 10:53 AM
Hey, do we know if this was a robbery or some kind of hit on the guy?

I have to say (having watched the video) that if I were the owner of a jewelry store and I felt the need to CCW, I'd also like to be wearing a vest.

Dumb question here ... are 'bulletproof" vests legal in CA? I thought that they weren't.

sanjosebmx
04-11-2011, 10:56 AM
Hey, do we know if this was a robbery or some kind of hit on the guy?

I have to say (having watched the video) that if I were the owner of a jewelry store and I felt the need to CCW, I'd also like to be wearing a vest.

Dumb question here ... are 'bulletproof" vests legal in CA? I thought that they weren't.

it appears to be an assassination, or a retaliation killing not a robbery, and the video is from India...

DannyZRC
04-11-2011, 10:57 AM
it was a hit, in India.

Side note, the people that assassinated him were no longer in possession of firearms permits, so this never could have happened and is an elaborately staged lie (isn't that right, brady campaign?)

k1dude
04-11-2011, 10:58 AM
Hey, do we know if this was a robbery or some kind of hit on the guy?

I have to say (having watched the video) that if I were the owner of a jewelry store and I felt the need to CCW, I'd also like to be wearing a vest.

Dumb question here ... are 'bulletproof" vests legal in CA? I thought that they weren't.

It was a hit, not a robbery.

Bulletproof vests are legal in KA.

wu_dot_com
04-11-2011, 11:01 AM
It was a hit, not a robbery.

Bulletproof vests are legal in KA.

what if they come at you with a high power rifle?:43:

i say you need an iron man or batman suit. :TFH:

tacticalcity
04-11-2011, 11:04 AM
For those who taught themselves how to shoot, this is going to sound extremely snobbish...but it really is true.

There is a right way and a wrong way to carry. The right way dramatically increases your chances of survival...and that is to carry with a round in the chamber.

If you are not confident enough in your firearms skills to carry with a round in the chamber then you really should not be carrying at all. You simply lack the necessary training and skill set. Odds are you will end up doing more harm than good. Sure, it is your constitutional right. However, you owe it to yourself, your loved ones, and those you will be around while armed to take some professional firearms courses and beef up your skill set so that you will not only prevail but not harm the wrong people should you ever find yourself in a fire fight.

If you are nervous carrying with a round in the chamber I do not want you near me when armed. Because if you had the necessary training and skill level to carry concealed you would not be nervious at all. That is the very definition of dangerous - and there is no excuse for it. Not with so many affordable training courses right here in California.

Not only will you not have time to chamber a round in a fire fight (since you are the good guy you will be way behind the power curve as it is) you are someone who lacks the training and experience to know that you won't have that time. That likely means you likely lack all the other skill sets you would have picked up with proper training that are necessary to not only survive a gun battle but keep you from harming innocent bystanders in the process. This stuff is a lot more difficult than it looks. A lot of very difficult to execute concepts all need to be put into practice all at the same time. The best way to ensure you can do that is with proper training and practice.

I strongly recommend some professional training. Not just to build your carry confidence, but because the courses are a lot of fun. They are win-win.

Here are some pictures of my cousin on the trip to Front Sight last winter. He started off with no practical experience, and left very confident in his abilities, not mention eager to take more courses. Sadly I do not have any pictures from my training with Stone Cobra Tactical, but they are an excellent local resource. Notice that he is training from the holster, and in the second group of pictures he is training from concealment as well. I am sure there is a school near you that will help you beef up your skill level and confidence that you would not hesitate to carry with a round in the chamber (as well as all the other scary things that go along with concealed carry) and be safe while doing so.

Man on man shoot out at the end of the course...
http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh183/tacticalcity/6.jpg
http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh183/tacticalcity/5.jpg
http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh183/tacticalcity/4.jpg

Training in the rain...
http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh183/tacticalcity/1.jpg
http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh183/tacticalcity/2.jpg

Spirit 1
04-11-2011, 11:23 AM
I'm commenting on your example, I'm not calling you horrible :rolleyes:

And thumbing a hammer one handed is not the same as a two handed in most cases racking of the slide... Another bad aww forget it haha


Dead serious question, how much experience do you have with handguns?

Personal hands-on experience & professional level training? About 50 years for me: how about you?

titankeith
04-11-2011, 11:24 AM
For those who taught themselves how to shoot, this is going to sound extremely snobbish...but it really is true.

There is a right way and a wrong way to carry. The right way dramatically increases your chances of survival...and that is to carry with a round in the chamber.

If you are not confident enough in your firearms skills to carry with a round in the chamber then you really should not be carrying at all. You simply lack the necessary training and skill set. Odds are you will end up doing more harm than good. Sure, it is your constitutional right. However, you owe it to yourself, your loved ones, and those you will be around while armed to take some professional firearms courses and beef up your skill set so that you will not only prevail but not harm the wrong people should you ever find yourself in a fire fight.

If you are nervous carrying with a round in the chamber I do not want you near me when armed. Because if you had the necessary training and skill level to carry concealed you would not be nervious at all. That is the very definition of dangerous - and there is no excuse for it. Not with so many affordable training courses right here in California.

Not only will you not have time to chamber a round in a fire fight (since you are the good guy you will be way behind the power curve as it is) you are someone who lacks the training and experience to know that you won't have that time. That likely means you likely lack all the other skill sets you would have picked up with proper training that are necessary to not only survive a gun battle but keep you from harming innocent bystanders in the process. This stuff is a lot more difficult than it looks. A lot of very difficult to execute concepts all need to be put into practice all at the same time. The best way to ensure you can do that is with proper training and practice.

I strongly recommend some professional training. Not just to build your carry confidence, but because the courses are a lot of fun. They are win-win.

Here are some pictures of my cousin on the trip to Front Sight last winter. He started off with no practical experience, and left very confident in his abilities, not mention eager to take more courses. Sadly I do not have any pictures from my training with Stone Cobra Tactical, but they are an excellent local resource. Notice that he is training from the holster, and in the second group of pictures he is training from concealment as well.

Man on man shoot out at the end of the course...
http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh183/tacticalcity/6.jpg
http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh183/tacticalcity/5.jpg
http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh183/tacticalcity/4.jpg

Training in the rain...
http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh183/tacticalcity/1.jpg
http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh183/tacticalcity/2.jpg



Agreed 100%!!!!

Shenaniguns
04-11-2011, 11:27 AM
Personal hands-on experience & professional level training? About 50 years for me: how about you?



And you don't feel comfortable carrying C1 for very strange reasons given your examples? LOL

50 years huh? I guess this is where Quality definitely beats Quantity...
Where did you receive this so called professional level training?

I've only been shooting since 1998 and have taken a few classes with Todd Green and Bruce Gray as the more notable but I have friends and family that are also instructors which saves me $$$ :)

tacticalcity
04-11-2011, 11:29 AM
As for the video...that was very hard to watch. Made me cringe and cringe and cringe. Talk about my worst nightmare.

As for my cousin's first training course, he did really well. We had some terrible weather that added to an already difficult course and he did really well. I was very proud of him...and really had to step up my game not to be outshined by him.

As for the personal attacks between people, I don't see the need to go there. I prefer to focus on the concepts, and not the individuals. I can remember having some pretty funky ideas in the past that got changed pretty quickly once I got some training under my belt that pointed out the flaw in my logic. It is safe to assume the same rule applies here.

Spirit 1
04-11-2011, 11:30 AM
Sorry, but I disagree. The mechanical issue, how the gun is carried in a proper, well designed holster, is a matter of more efficient or less efficient, as long as the gun and carrying equipment are safe, and the individual is trained and skilled in its use (and if he is not, he ought to be seeking training and developing his skills).

The "other parameters" are mental. Situational awareness, assessing the environment, understanding and acting in a manner consistent with the legal, moral and ethical requirements on, and limitations of, the use of force, are mental issues. They are matters of training and education. They are more important than the tools. They are also, in my experience, regrettably less thought about than questions related to the tools.

I see you came back & made changes to your post 1/2 hour later, so no idea what was originally written. However what you did leave agrees with what I've been saying, that there's so much more to this than condition of carry, that condition is not the main event!

fiddletown
04-11-2011, 11:35 AM
...fiddletown has finally even admitted this, which causes me to wonder what he thought he was arguing against in the first place. For the record, and to be clear, let's see exactly what I wrote in post 254:...Actually, and this may surprise you, I would agree that C3 is a better idea for off-body carry, or pocket carry without a holster (although I still would not carry a 1911 type pistol in my pocket cocked and locked, even in a holster) and probably for Mexican carry as well. But those are "specialized" forms of carry for unique circumstances. These are situations in which either the method of carry already prevents a quick presentation (off-body carry and, in some cases, pocket carry without a holster), or present special safety issues (Mexican carry or pocket carry without a holster).

fiddletown
04-11-2011, 11:43 AM
I see you came back & made changes to your post 1/2 hour later, so no idea what was originally written. However what you did leave agrees with what I've been saying, that there's so much more to this than condition of carry, that condition is not the main event!I saw that I originally wrote in the first paragraph, "...as long as the gun and carrying equipment is safe...". I corrected this to read, "...as long as the gun and carrying equipment are safe...."

If you are receiving email updates when something is posted in a thread to which you've subscribed, you should have the original form of my post in that email.

I'll leave it to others to decide if I agreed with you or not.

Spirit 1
04-11-2011, 11:53 AM
Are you even a gun owner? I suspect you aren't after comments like that. I suspect you're a Brady plant.

First, I see no indication whatsoever in this thread of comments like you claim. Second, you are implying most of the gun owners posting here are Rambo wannabees. Third, many of us posting in this thread carry on a daily basis, we do not have a hidden desire to kill people. If we did, where is the bloodbath that the anti's have always claimed will happen? We carry because we want to stay alive by protecting ourselves. We don't have these insulting hidden fantasy's that you claim. There is enormous responsibility in carrying a weapon. Every single last one of us hopes and prays we NEVER have to use it. NONE of us here take that lightly. Your post and your attitude make me sick.

Unbelievable! Just because I don't agree with some folks ideas on condition of carry I'm a BRADY PLANT??? Are you kidding me? And because my views differ from yours I'm probably not even a gun owner?

I cannot help what you cannot see in threads here, due to your own myopia on what is 'right' according to you. However you are fabricating and are not telling the truth at all. I never in any way implied that "MOST of the gun owners posting here are Rambo wannabees." I suggested that one or some may be, and have done my best to show respect to others as the large majority.

"Third, many of us posting in this thread carry on a daily basis, we do not have a hidden desire to kill people. If we did, where is the bloodbath that the anti's have always claimed will happen? We carry because we want to stay alive by protecting ourselves. We don't have these insulting hidden fantasy's that you claim."

I did not throw a blanket indictment over everyone that has a different viewpoint from mine, not even close to that. I never suggested in any way that everyone here that carries is just waiting to kill! Where did you get that? If you think I did then either you can't understand what I read or you're creating a reality that doesn't exist. Now you've got yourself all worked up because you think I said what you think I said, instead of taking the time to go back and read, word for word, what I've posted in numerous posts, to actually find out what I did say. You end up around the corner & down the road outta sight running with what you imagine I said.

Just like everyone else posting here I'm a VERY strong believer, supporter & practioner of 2A RIGHTS and personal defensive carry and it's been a part of my life for decades. Most of my close friends have shared these views as well. Where I did speak against the Rambo types it's 100% valid, but thankfully they're a relatively small percentage of gun owners. Don't try to convince me or us that they are a figment of the imagination because unfortunately, it just isn't so. In that respect I think it's up to us to police our own, or give guidance where appropriate, which is what I was doing!

Spirit 1
04-11-2011, 11:58 AM
When carrying on the way to town I choose Condition 3. If a mechanical failure or blowout sends me over the side the last other thing I want to worry about is an AD shooting myself in the impact of rolling & tumbling down the cliff. Condition 3 carry is safer. As I approach town the road becomes much more manageable so I have plenty of time to go to Condition 1 if needs be.




the LOL turbines have kicked into full throttle now...

Looks like you should have tried harder, because one of the other members posted that he hadn't seen any of the insults I had commented on. Thanks for your very useful contribution to this thread. By the way, what was the usefulness?

k1dude
04-11-2011, 12:02 PM
Unbelievable! Just because I don't agree with some folks ideas on condition of carry I'm a BRADY PLANT??? Are you kidding me? And because my views differ from yours I'm probably not even a gun owner?

I cannot help what you cannot see in threads here, due to your own myopia on what is 'right' according to you. However you are fabricating and are not telling the truth at all. I never in any way implied that "MOST of the gun owners posting here are Rambo wannabees." I suggested that one or some may be, and have done my best to show respect to others as the large majority.

"Third, many of us posting in this thread carry on a daily basis, we do not have a hidden desire to kill people. If we did, where is the bloodbath that the anti's have always claimed will happen? We carry because we want to stay alive by protecting ourselves. We don't have these insulting hidden fantasy's that you claim."

I did not throw a blanket indictment over everyone that has a different viewpoint from mine, not even close to that. I never suggested in any way that everyone here that carries is just waiting to kill! Where did you get that? If you think I did then either you can't understand what I read or you're creating a reality that doesn't exist. Now you've got yourself all worked up because you think I said what you think I said, instead of taking the time to go back and read, word for word, what I've posted in numerous posts, to actually find out what I did say. You end up around the corner & down the road outta sight running with what you imagine I said.

Just like everyone else posting here I'm a VERY strong believer, supporter & practioner of 2A RIGHTS and personal defensive carry and it's been a part of my life for decades. Most of my close friends have shared these views as well. Where I did speak against the Rambo types it's 100% valid, but thankfully they're a relatively small percentage of gun owners. Don't try to convince me or us that they are a figment of the imagination because unfortunately, it just isn't so. In that respect I think it's up to us to police our own, or give guidance where appropriate, which is what I was doing!

Re-read what you wrote again. My post had absolutely NOTHING to do with your argument. It had EVERYTHING to do with your portrayal of gun owners and specifically an indictment of the posters in this thread. If you can't see that you're blind as a bat and no one can help you. Good day.

Spirit 1
04-11-2011, 12:05 PM
I won't insult you spirit, but I think being worried about an AD if you go over the edge of the road is 2 things.

#1, I don't think you need to worry about an AD in that situation, I think most any modern pistol is safe for 30-60 seconds of random tumbling.

#2, not to be morbid, but if you're going over the cliff, I don't think being shot changes your odds of survival very much in the astronomically unlikely event that it occurs.

Oh, I agree a whole bunch! Thing is it's very similar to the thread topic, as in the matter of the odds of an event happening and what we can possibly do to shift the odds in our favor. I do what I can, even though I seriously doubt, according to statistics, that I'll ever actually need a defensive weapon for the rest of my life. Hope not anyway....

tacticalcity
04-11-2011, 12:16 PM
On a side note (and others have sort of gone here) if the gun is not being carried but stored I am not comfortable with it being loaded. Once it leaves my possession I cannot trust the condition of the weapon regardless. Before using it I would need to confirm the condition anyway. So I store my semi-auto handguns with the slide locked to the rear, and no magazine inserted. My nightstand gun has a loaded magazine right next to it along with a tactical light and nothing else in the drawer. Loading it is a quick process.

Even if I had it stored loaded I would need to do a chamber-check, mag-check, chamber-check to confirm the status before trusting it so the advantage of doing so for a firefight is not a great as it sounds. Every time my gun leaves my possession and I go to pick it up, I do a chamber-check, mag-check, chamber check. And if the goal is for it to be empty (as in before dry fire practice) then storing it the way I do comes in handy.

Between my military training which insists that weapons not be stored loaded and the fact that I do a lot of dry fire practice so 99.9999% of the time when I am not carrying I want the gun unloaded. It just works better for me.

But when carrying, I carry loaded - round in the chamber.

Spirit 1
04-11-2011, 12:20 PM
For those who taught themselves how to shoot, this is going to sound extremely snobbish...but it really is true.

There is a right way and a wrong way to carry. The right way dramatically increases your chances of survival...and that is to carry with a round in the chamber.

If you are not confident enough in your firearms skills to carry with a round in the chamber then you really should not be carrying at all. You simply lack the necessary training and skill set. Odds are you will end up doing more harm than good. Sure, it is your constitutional right. However, you owe it to yourself, your loved ones, and those you will be around while armed to take some professional firearms courses and beef up your skill set so that you will not only prevail but not harm the wrong people should you ever find yourself in a fire fight.

If you are nervous carrying with a round in the chamber I do not want you near me when armed. Because if you had the necessary training and skill level to carry concealed you would not be nervious at all. That is the very definition of dangerous - and there is no excuse for it. Not with so many affordable training courses right here in California.

Not only will you not have time to chamber a round in a fire fight (since you are the good guy you will be way behind the power curve as it is) you are someone who lacks the training and experience to know that you won't have that time. That likely means you likely lack all the other skill sets you would have picked up with proper training that are necessary to not only survive a gun battle but keep you from harming innocent bystanders in the process. This stuff is a lot more difficult than it looks. A lot of very difficult to execute concepts all need to be put into practice all at the same time. The best way to ensure you can do that is with proper training and practice.

I strongly recommend some professional training. Not just to build your carry confidence, but because the courses are a lot of fun. They are win-win.

Here are some pictures of my cousin on the trip to Front Sight last winter. He started off with no practical experience, and left very confident in his abilities, not mention eager to take more courses. Sadly I do not have any pictures from my training with Stone Cobra Tactical, but they are an excellent local resource. Notice that he is training from the holster, and in the second group of pictures he is training from concealment as well. I am sure there is a school near you that will help you beef up your skill level and confidence that you would not hesitate to carry with a round in the chamber (as well as all the other scary things that go along with concealed carry) and be safe while doing so.

Man on man shoot out at the end of the course...
http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh183/tacticalcity/6.jpg
http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh183/tacticalcity/5.jpg
http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh183/tacticalcity/4.jpg

Training in the rain...
http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh183/tacticalcity/1.jpg
http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh183/tacticalcity/2.jpg

Congratulations there, tacticalcity! I didn't think it was possible, as I've never seen so many erroneous ASSUMPTIONS piled up in one place at one time!

I do not insist on ONLY CONDITION 1 CARRY, but I am certainly no part of the picture you paint of the ineptitude and total lack of skills & training in people who believe as I do. I'm happy you have been able to receive training. I respect your decision in what is the preferred method of carry, FOR YOU. Otherwise your generalities, assertions & accusations about the skill set and experience of anyone who doesn't agree with you, really, really lacks.

Spirit 1
04-11-2011, 12:45 PM
And you don't feel comfortable carrying C1 for very strange reasons given your examples? LOL

50 years huh? I guess this is where Quality definitely beats Quantity...
Where did you receive this so called professional level training?

I've only been shooting since 1998 and have taken a few classes with Todd Green and Bruce Gray as the more notable but I have friends and family that are also instructors which saves me $$$ :)

Very strange reasons? You mean very strange like wanting to lower the odds of an AD in the event of a serious wreck on treacherous mountain roads in the depths of winter?

"50 years huh? I guess this is where Quality definitely beats Quantity...
Where did you receive this so called professional level training?"

So, your hopes that I was an unskilled, untrained newbie were dashed and backfired, therefore it's time to roll out some insults at my particular training, which you know absolutely nothing about. You have achieved some higher level of training and expertise in 13 years of experience than I have in 50 years? You're convinced of that because I say that at times Con 1 carry is not necessarily the only or best option?

As I mentioned before in this thread, my professional training started well before my teens thanks to a father who was a professional instructor. Over the years my training has included many different options for carry & use, some good, some bad. This includes the old days on the Texas Border, misc. government service, battle hardened survivor professional, out on the mean streets and many other circumstances, long before your time I think. I somehow doubt you spent any quality time with Keith or Cooper or, well, so many others. Regardless, my training has been far more than sufficient.

Spirit 1
04-11-2011, 12:47 PM
I saw that I originally wrote in the first paragraph, "...as long as the gun and carrying equipment is safe...". I corrected this to read, "...as long as the gun and carrying equipment are safe...."

If you are receiving email updates when something is posted in a thread to which you've subscribed, you should have the original form of my post in that email.

I'll leave it to others to decide if I agreed with you or not.

Thank you.

Spirit 1
04-11-2011, 12:55 PM
Re-read what you wrote again. My post had absolutely NOTHING to do with your argument. It had EVERYTHING to do with your portrayal of gun owners and specifically an indictment of the posters in this thread. If you can't see that you're blind as a bat and no one can help you. Good day.

You still don't get it! I spoke against one, or some, as in less than 3, not all gun owners, like myself, and not all posters. Matter of fact it wasn't specifically pointed at folks posting in this thread. Therefore your getting all hot under the collar and defensive because I apparently insulted you personally and all the others posting here is 100% incorrect, uncalled for and a complete misunderstanding on your part, not mine.

And I hope your day gets better.

Shenaniguns
04-11-2011, 1:02 PM
Very strange reasons? You mean very strange like wanting to lower the odds of an AD in the event of a serious wreck on treacherous mountain roads in the depths of winter?

"50 years huh? I guess this is where Quality definitely beats Quantity...
Where did you receive this so called professional level training?"

So, your hopes that I was an unskilled, untrained newbie were dashed and backfired, therefore it's time to roll out some insults at my particular training, which you know absolutely nothing about. You have achieved some higher level of training and expertise in 13 years of experience than I have in 50 years? You're convinced of that because I say that at times Con 1 carry is not necessarily the only or best option?

As I mentioned before in this thread, my professional training started well before my teens thanks to a father who was a professional instructor. Over the years my training has included many different options for carry & use, some good, some bad. This includes the old days on the Texas Border, misc. government service, battle hardened survivor professional, out on the mean streets and many other circumstances, long before your time I think. I somehow doubt you spent any quality time with Keith or Cooper or, well, so many others. Regardless, my training has been far more than sufficient.



Sorry, for these 50 years of training you sure don't show it in your posts. Hell you even compared racking a slide on a semi-auto to thumbing a hammer on a SAO revolver lol. Do I think you're an untrained newbie? Probably not but I think you're casual shooting with who you stated is what you consider training. Or you just didn't absorb and retain it.


I think my Father who is a current instructor who also trains me is adequate as well ;)

Expertise: Certified POST Instructor in, Firearms,
Officer Involved Shooting Investigations,
Bomb Investigations, Surveillance,
Dignitary/Witness Protection, Command
Post, Basic Academy-Crime in Progress.
CPR/BLS


Have I trained with Cooper? I have not had the pleasure. Elmer Keith? Yeah he dies when I was 10 :rolleyes: I listed 2 instructors above which you probably never heard of but are pretty well known as current instructors and/or Gunsmiths.

titankeith
04-11-2011, 1:06 PM
On a side note (and others have sort of gone here) if the gun is not being carried but stored I am not comfortable with it being loaded. Once it leaves my possession I cannot trust the condition of the weapon regardless. Before using it I would need to confirm the condition anyway. So I store my semi-auto handguns with the slide locked to the rear, and no magazine inserted. My nightstand gun has a loaded magazine right next to it along with a tactical light and nothing else in the drawer. Loading it is a quick process.

Even if I had it stored loaded I would need to do a chamber-check, mag-check, chamber-check to confirm the status before trusting it so the advantage of doing so for a firefight is not a great as it sounds. Every time my gun leaves my possession and I go to pick it up, I do a chamber-check, mag-check, chamber check. And if the goal is for it to be empty (as in before dry fire practice) then storing it the way I do comes in handy.

Between my military training which insists that weapons not be stored loaded and the fact that I do a lot of dry fire practice so 99.9999% of the time when I am not carrying I want the gun unloaded. It just works better for me.

But when carrying, I carry loaded - round in the chamber.

I agree with everything but your nightstand gun...My opinion it should be loaded, unless you worry about kids...then it should be loaded at night, and unloaded when you leave for work.

Shenaniguns
04-11-2011, 1:16 PM
I agree with everything but your nightstand gun...My opinion it should be loaded, unless you worry about kids...then it should be loaded at night, and unloaded when you leave for work.


My HD gun is loaded mag but not chambered and I feel comfortable with the 30 seconds to a minute that I will have to chamber it if the alarm goes off. My CCW gun which is also near me is the only gun I keep hot 100% of the time.

ZombieTactics
04-11-2011, 1:46 PM
Hmmm, lots of attitude abounds when you challenge "conventional wisdom" (which is often a contradtiction in terms).

Having been shooting for over 35 years, and having taken my first training (from a been there/done that Nam vet and Stockton PD officer) about 30 years ago, and having trained extensively over the last few decades, I find these comments odd to say the least.

In reference to that first course, I was assured by my expert instructor that my newly-purchased Glock was "junk", and that point-shooting was the REAL tactical shooting ... anything else would get you killed, and bothering with all that two-handed, sight-picture stuff was a fad (like my Glock) which would soon go the way of the dinosaur in the face of what "real shooters" know.

Uh huh.

Later course were less dogmatic regarding regarding The Modern Technique, but perhaps even more strident in their disdain for my "combat Tupperware". More than one assured me that it would fail me when I most needed it ... and get me killed.

Right.

Tea-cupping was THE HOLD according to one instructor. .45ACP was the only, only, ONLY sensible choice for a self-defense round according to another. Anything else ... gets you killled, duncha know?

Without any conceivable doubt ... why would I ever question or think otherwise?

I've been through a whole lot of "preaching" about some dang'd "everybody knows it" nonsense of one kind or another over the years, but I've also learned a helluva lot from my various teachers ... although perhaps not always what they intended to teach me.

In 2009 I attended 2 handgun classes. In 2010 I attended a rifle class and a shotgun class in addition to a "refresher" for handgun. This year I've been to 3 handgun classes and 2 rifle classes already, plus a combo (albeit basic) rifle/pistol class.

I've become accustomed to the idea that using my own mind has served me every bit as well as any "official holy writ of the gun gawdz" ever has. I continue to train, especially with schools offering different techniques and methods. The differences teach me much more than I could ever learn from simply accepting ONE school of thought.

If the notion that I disagree with you causes you to suspect my competence, I respectfully ask that you examine your own preconceptions.

negolien
04-11-2011, 1:52 PM
All in all most would probably "prefer" to carry locked and cocked.. HOWEVER that doen't mean it's a fit all for everyone or all the time simple fact. Training can help in these situations as the Israelis have show many times. Seen many a video of them training for unloaded violant confrontations... train how you fight!! I agree with the depends what your doing and where your going but like with cheap ammo people are going to have their minds made up no matter what ya say.

tacticalcity
04-11-2011, 2:13 PM
Congratulations there, tacticalcity! I didn't think it was possible, as I've never seen so many erroneous ASSUMPTIONS piled up in one place at one time!

I do not insist on ONLY CONDITION 1 CARRY, but I am certainly no part of the picture you paint of the ineptitude and total lack of skills & training in people who believe as I do. I'm happy you have been able to receive training. I respect your decision in what is the preferred method of carry, FOR YOU. Otherwise your generalities, assertions & accusations about the skill set and experience of anyone who doesn't agree with you, really, really lacks.

Did I just not say how I wanted to keep my comments generalized and not a personal attack? Did I not say that I found all the nasty comments to each other distasteful? I made ZERO reference to you. What gives man? Why the chip on your shoulder?

I have no problem with UOC to prove a political point (although I think all the attitude towards the PD is distasteful and a major distraction) if that is where you are headed with your remarks.

Other than that I honestly cannot think of a justification for carrying without a round in the chamber with self defense as all or part of your objective. It runs 100% contrary to all doctrine, training and personal experiences that I have. It is a cardinal sin in the circles I run with. This concept is addressed in every entry level class I have ever seen. It is handgun 101. There are countless drills demonstrating how ineffective it is, and countless of examples of how it has gotten people killed in real life gun battles.

Of all the posts I have seen where people advocate carrying without a round in the chamber, they almost always center around being uncomfortable with their own firearms skills and are worried about safety. Which by definition says they lack the proper training and experience. With said training, practice and experience they develop confidence in their own abilities and no longer fear carrying with a round in the chamber.

If you have some other justification for carrying without a round in the chamber I would love to hear it and we can have a nice polite debate. Let me know why, despite having complete confidence in your ability to handle the firearm safely you feel it necessary to carry without a round chambered. Issue a counter filled with facts and scenarios that backup your views and loose the attitude please.

The attitude you're dishing out is completely overriding any point you are trying to make. The ears turn off and stop listening automatically. Flies. Sugar. Vinegar. Any of that ringing a bell?

tacticalcity
04-11-2011, 2:33 PM
Hmmm, lots of attitude abounds when you challenge "conventional wisdom" (which is often a contradtiction in terms).

Having been shooting for over 35 years, and having taken my first training (from a been there/done that Nam vet and Stockton PD officer) about 30 years ago, and having trained extensively over the last few decades, I find these comments odd to say the least.

In reference to that first course, I was assured by my expert instructor that my newly-purchased Glock was "junk", and that point-shooting was the REAL tactical shooting ... anything else would get you killed, and bothering with all that two-handed, sight-picture stuff was a fad (like my Glock) which would soon go the way of the dinosaur in the face of what "real shooters" know.

Uh huh.

Later course were less dogmatic regarding regarding The Modern Technique, but perhaps even more strident in their disdain for my "combat Tupperware". More than one assured me that it would fail me when I most needed it ... and get me killed.

Right.

Tea-cupping was THE HOLD according to one instructor. .45ACP was the only, only, ONLY sensible choice for a self-defense round according to another. Anything else ... gets you killled, duncha know?

Without any conceivable doubt ... why would I ever question or think otherwise?

I've been through a whole lot of "preaching" about some dang'd "everybody knows it" nonsense of one kind or another over the years, but I've also learned a helluva lot from my various teachers ... although perhaps not always what they intended to teach me.

In 2009 I attended 2 handgun classes. In 2010 I attended a rifle class and a shotgun class in addition to a "refresher" for handgun. This year I've been to 3 handgun classes and 2 rifle classes already, plus a combo (albeit basic) rifle/pistol class.

I've become accustomed to the idea that using my own mind has served me every bit as well as any "official holy writ of the gun gawdz" ever has. I continue to train, especially with schools offering different techniques and methods. The differences teach me much more than I could ever learn from simply accepting ONE school of thought.

If the notion that I disagree with you causes you to suspect my competence, I respectfully ask that you examine your own preconceptions.

Well I for one love your Tupperware with the big G on the side of it and I fully admit tactics and views are constantly changing. I try to take at least one course per weapon system that I own per year (more if I can afford it), usually from the same schools, and the methods and techniques always vary a little from year to year as things evolve.

However, when it comes to carrying unloaded, which in my view is what carrying without a round in the chamber is, I would just like to hear a scenario that makes sense. So far all the scenarios I have read on here fall back to a lack of confidence in one's ability. Maybe I missed the post where somebody offered up a great example of where it makes sense and where proper training would not invalidate their argument. I would love to hear it. I just haven't seen it yet. In such a scenario, where doing so is the absolute best case option and more training, practice, and confidence would not make it obsolete then I am all for it. I am just not sure when that would be. If you find yourself in that scenario, you have my sympathy.

sanjosebmx
04-11-2011, 2:45 PM
Looks like you should have tried harder, because one of the other members posted that he hadn't seen any of the insults I had commented on. Thanks for your very useful contribution to this thread. By the way, what was the usefulness?

it may not have been useful, but FWIW I haven't laughed so hard in quite some time, so for that, I thank you.

tacticalcity
04-11-2011, 2:52 PM
I agree with everything but your nightstand gun...My opinion it should be loaded, unless you worry about kids...then it should be loaded at night, and unloaded when you leave for work.

I understand your view point. I am not opposed to people doing it your way. My way just works better for me.

When the gun is out side of my immediate possession I prefer to be as cautious as is remotely practical. When it is in my possession I have full confidence in my own abilities and prefer it be ready to rock.

But I do get the argument in favor of your method. Perhaps if I didn't do dry fire practice as often as I do I would think my method is silly too. The gun gets handled daily, where the goal is for it to be unloaded. So my way is more practical from that sense. If there were a break in, the pendulum begins to swing the other way. I get that.

SheepDogHog
04-11-2011, 6:00 PM
:popcorn:

....The Con3 arguments are amusing.

fiddletown
04-11-2011, 7:02 PM
One issue that has been raised regarding carrying in C3 is that quickly making the gun ready to fire requires two hands. So of course a logical companion question is how frequently is one likely to need to fire his gun in self defense with only one hand. We have reason to believe that a gun, if it needs to be fired in self defense, will be fired with one hand more often than one might suspect.

Massad Ayoob was kind enough to send me a copy of the New York City Police Department Firearm Discharge Report for 2009 (the most recent year available). A copy is attached.

On page 8 (page 32 of the pdf, there's a long introduction), it is noted (emphasis added): ...Utilizing a two‐handed grip, standing, and lining up a target using the firearmís sights is the preferred method of discharging a firearm, but it is not always practical during an adversarial conflict. Of officers reporting their shooting techniques, 62 percent gripped the firearm with two hands,... Therefore, 38% of the officers reporting their shooting technique used in the adversarial conflict (apparently the NYPD term for "gun fight") fired their gun one-handed.

To be sure, this is a small and particular sample. But it is at least strongly suggestive that in defensive uses of a pistol, firing the gun with one-handed is not that uncommon.

Spirit 1
04-11-2011, 7:18 PM
Did I just not say how I wanted to keep my comments generalized and not a personal attack? Did I not say that I found all the nasty comments to each other distasteful? I made ZERO reference to you. What gives man? Why the chip on your shoulder?

I have no problem with UOC to prove a political point (although I think all the attitude towards the PD is distasteful and a major distraction) if that is where you are headed with your remarks.

Other than that I honestly cannot think of a justification for carrying without a round in the chamber with self defense as all or part of your objective. It runs 100% contrary to all doctrine, training and personal experiences that I have. It is a cardinal sin in the circles I run with. This concept is addressed in every entry level class I have ever seen. It is handgun 101. There are countless drills demonstrating how ineffective it is, and countless of examples of how it has gotten people killed in real life gun battles.

Of all the posts I have seen where people advocate carrying without a round in the chamber, they almost always center around being uncomfortable with their own firearms skills and are worried about safety. Which by definition says they lack the proper training and experience. With said training, practice and experience they develop confidence in their own abilities and no longer fear carrying with a round in the chamber.

If you have some other justification for carrying without a round in the chamber I would love to hear it and we can have a nice polite debate. Let me know why, despite having complete confidence in your ability to handle the firearm safely you feel it necessary to carry without a round chambered. Issue a counter filled with facts and scenarios that backup your views and loose the attitude please.

The attitude you're dishing out is completely overriding any point you are trying to make. The ears turn off and stop listening automatically. Flies. Sugar. Vinegar. Any of that ringing a bell?

What gives? Chip on my shoulder? I have stated numerous times that I believe Condition 1 is not the only option, and that there are very good reasons in some circumstances to carry other ways. I've also described 2 scenarios when I carry in some other way besides Con 1. Your comments in your post, which I considered to be in direct response to that were:

"If you are not confident enough in your firearms skills to carry with a round in the chamber then you really should not be carrying at all. You simply lack the necessary training and skill set. Odds are you will end up doing more harm than good. Sure, it is your constitutional right. However, you owe it to yourself, your loved ones, and those you will be around while armed to take some professional firearms courses and beef up your skill set so that you will not only prevail but not harm the wrong people should you ever find yourself in a fire fight.

If you are nervous carrying with a round in the chamber I do not want you near me when armed. Because if you had the necessary training and skill level to carry concealed you would not be nervious at all. That is the very definition of dangerous - and there is no excuse for it. Not with so many affordable training courses right here in California.

Not only will you not have time to chamber a round in a fire fight (since you are the good guy you will be way behind the power curve as it is) you are someone who lacks the training and experience to know that you won't have that time. That likely means you likely lack all the other skill sets you would have picked up with proper training that are necessary to not only survive a gun battle but keep you from harming innocent bystanders in the process. This stuff is a lot more difficult than it looks. A lot of very difficult to execute concepts all need to be put into practice all at the same time. The best way to ensure you can do that is with proper training and practice.

I strongly recommend some professional training. Not just to build your carry confidence, but because the courses are a lot of fun. They are win-win."
If you were responding to someone else I was mistaken to be offended. However I believe that was clearly aimed in my direction, as in personally, and represents a whole bunch of insults regarding my personal character & ability.

There's another example in your reply above: "Of all the posts I have seen where people advocate carrying without a round in the chamber, they almost always center around being uncomfortable with their own firearms skills and are worried about safety. Which by definition says they lack the proper training and experience.

It's clear as can be there, pretty hard to deny. Anybody who advocates carrying in any way besides Con 1 is unskilled, according to you. Meaning that the real reason they don't carry locked & loaded at times is only because of lousy skill levels and fear of firearms and feelings of inadequacy regarding their own abilities. I guess if that's spun around in the opposite direction a person who is properly trained would never worry about safety of a firearm? Uh-oh...

What you and others simply cannot comprehend, though it's been repeated numerous times, here it is again: at times I believe Con 1 is the best way to carry, and at other times I believe it is not the best way to carry. There's no lack of training or quaking in my boots fear of firearms, no gross lack of skills, no hidden insecurities or any of the other that's been suggested. What there is in that is a recognition that circumstances should dictate one's actions, just as well as training & skills.

I clearly described at least 2 scenarios where there was sum total ZERO Threat Level, none, non-existent, and impossible to suddenly occur. I also described a couple of good reasons NOT to carry loaded then, in those types of zero threat circumstances, and one even mentioned taking off a gun I had been carrying. Of those 2 scenaros, one was to protect the gun from getting dunked in salt water! Yet for all of that several including you toss out various insults to my intelligence, training, skills, character, upbringing, my instructors, and insist that there are no circumstances in existence nor will there ever be when a person should carry any way but in Con 1.

I see no justification at all for the numerous insults. The opinions & mindset are y'all's problem. There's no time in my life to make enemies and I've done my best to remain civil & not return the vinegar, but some comments are just too demeaning to inore.

Spirit 1
04-11-2011, 7:31 PM
All in all most would probably "prefer" to carry locked and cocked.. HOWEVER that doen't mean it's a fit all for everyone or all the time simple fact. Training can help in these situations as the Israelis have show many times. Seen many a video of them training for unloaded violant confrontations... train how you fight!! I agree with the depends what your doing and where your going but like with cheap ammo people are going to have their minds made up no matter what ya say.

True, very true, and accurate and simply stated. Thanks.

JeepFreak
04-11-2011, 8:31 PM
Who said anything about 'best example', and was it my only example?? No, it's the second example I've given. And why a thinly veiled insult added?
It just seems reasonable that, especially given such contestment, you would put forth one/some of your best examples that support your argument. I did miss your other example though. If your dangerous drive example wasn't supposed to be anything near the "best" example you can come up with to support carrying in C3, then I don't see how you can even consider my laughter an insult or take any offense.

By your sig of Jeep Freak I see a similar analogy. 4 wheel drive in Jeeps is there for when you need it, when the terrain gets rough. Jeeps came with locking hubs and no Limited Slip, but can be upgraded to ARB Air Lockers or whatever. Likewise stock tires can be upgraded to super sticky gnarly lugged rock crawling tires, nearly twice the original diameter. When you can see, by experience, knowledge & training, that things just took a change for the worst, or that the potential begins to appear according to changes in your surroundings & environment, you may simply flip a switch & lock in the axles for 100% traction at all 4 wheels.

Because that protection from getting stranded when things get bad exists, should you always drive with the axles locked in, everywhere you go, like a shopping mall? Do you need rock crawling tires for all terrains? I mean hey, could be the engineers overlooked something, and maybe there's a huge unknown underground cavern beneath all that beautiful blacktop at the mall, and at any moment the earth could open up & collapse and your Jeep fall in, and the only hope is ARB and some monster traction to dig your way out! So is locked & loaded the ONLY CHOICE for EVERYBODY that decides to drive a Jeep, whenever & wherever they might go? Do you insult everybody that's just too stupid to see that Jeeps with the axles locked & running 44" ultra-traction rock-crawling tires are the ONLY WAY to get from point A to point B???

Back to guns: what about carry of a Single Action revolver for self defense? Is that a universally BAD choice for everybody, because one must first rack the hammer before the gun can fire, same as Con 3 semi-auto pistol must rack the slide? What if the crane or a spring or hammer breaks and a person can't prepare the weapon to fire? What if 7 blood thirsty maniacs bust through the door and you only have 6 rounds, in a SA only???? What if you carry with the hammer down on an empty chamber for safety's sake, only having 5 shots? Or what if a guy get's his thumb blown off, or bitten off by a pack of attacking thumb-biting hyenas [the worst kind, believe me!] so he can't cock the gun!?? Are ALL Single Actions therefore a stupid choice for defensive carry because they must be cocked before firing?

I don't think so; and I don't shift into 4 lock until I need it. I also don't choose my 4WD for a relaxed 2,000 mile freeway trip.

This is a very poor example. I have ARB's in both axles, locking hubs, 4Hi/4Low, etc. The selectable components of my Jeep are selectable for very good reasons - the axles because having open differentials wears tires slower, increases maneuverability, and makes easy trails more difficult - the hubs because unlocked hubs reduces wear on the front axle for street driving and locking hubs are an easy-to-change weak link - and the transfer case because 4Hi works well in the dunes, but 4Low kicks butt in the rocks. I can give you a good reason for every component on my Jeep - I have yet to hear a good reason for carrying in condition 3 with any regularity.

If you want a good Jeep analogy, it would be this - I keep a fire extinguisher in my Jeep. I keep it within arms reach of the driver's seat instead of in the rear cargo area because I never know when I'll need it, when I do need it, I'll probably need it quick, and I can't think of a good reason why I shouldn't keep it within arms reach of the driver's seat!

Billy

Pryde
04-11-2011, 9:02 PM
I carry condition 3, my CCW is an RPG and its really hard for me to conceal it due to length if the grenade is locked into the tube. I feel that although this is not an ideal situation, I have to compromise due to real-world constraints.

I was thinking that maybe I should either switch my CCW to a more compact weapon where the missle fits inside the tube like a LAW but I don't want to violate the law if the weapon falls under an SBR category. The best thing I can do now is to practice my tactical speed loading with the grenade so I can work on making it ready in a armed encounter.

Thoughts?

ZombieTactics
04-11-2011, 10:00 PM
Well I for one love your Tupperware with the big G on the side of it and I fully admit tactics and views are constantly changing. I try to take at least one course per weapon system that I own per year (more if I can afford it), usually from the same schools, and the methods and techniques always vary a little from year to year as things evolve. Well, my point wasn't simply that "things change", but that my own experience has been that the firearms world is often bound more by tradition and lore than good sense. I have some strong suspicions as to why this is the case, but that's another discussion.

However, when it comes to carrying unloaded, which in my view is what carrying without a round in the chamber is, I would just like to hear a scenario that makes sense. I expect that there are no "good scenarios" which you'd find compelling. What do you think of the cases fiddletown mentioned? I don't see any reason I should require anyone's agreement regarding my preferences as long as I don't place them at risk as a result.

So far all the scenarios I have read on here fall back to a lack of confidence in one's ability. ... Well, it seems you interpret them that way. It could just as easily be said that those who are C3-averse lack confidence or skill, and reject that method of carry as a result. Much of the reasoning strongly indicates a fear of being unable to operate their handgun under stress, for instance. It cuts both ways, and so represents not much of an argument either way.

ZombieTactics
04-11-2011, 10:26 PM
... To be sure, this is a small and particular sample. But it is at least strongly suggestive that in defensive uses of a pistol, firing the gun with one-handed is not that uncommon.
It's certainly a small sample and definitely particular, and as such incapable of generating any significant meaning or being "strongly suggestive" of anything outside the sample set.

NYPD officers do not represent a generally applicable sample set. Their occupation requires them to be in regular close contact with potential attackers for instance. The adoption of techniques like "field interview stance" virtually assure that they'll shoot one-handed much more often than the average citizen in a typical self-defense encounter. It's also important to note that this report is only of actual discharges. FBI UCR data indicates that a citizen successfully defending themselves will only discharge the weapon in about 1/330th of cases. So even if we accepted that this NYPD report can rationally say something generally about ALL cases (which it can't), it would mean that one-handed firing occurs in only about 1/1000th of the cases where a firearm is used successfully in self defense. Is 1 in 1000 cases your example of "not that uncommon"?


It's useful information for application to police officers perhaps, (who I'd suggest always carry C1) but worthless to the general discussion.

DannyZRC
04-11-2011, 10:49 PM
It's useful information for application to police officers perhaps, (who I'd suggest always carry C1) but worthless to the general discussion.

Always, or just when performing uniformed open carry?

when would you carry C3 that a peace officer would not, given similar circumstances?

jamesonamac
04-11-2011, 11:28 PM
It seems to me that constantly un-holstering and switching from a loaded chamber to an empty one would give that person a much higher chance of a n/d then someone that always carries in a consistant manner.

Not only do I carry with a round chambered, after I cycle that round in, I pop out the mag and put one more in. I want every tactical advantage I can get, and I hope I never need to use them.

Unlike driving a jeep in whatever conditions you plan on, weather street, off road, snow or mud, I carry a gun for the moment and conditions I can't predict. I choose to be as ready as I'm able to be.

fiddletown
04-12-2011, 7:35 AM
...FBI UCR data indicates that a citizen successfully defending themselves will only discharge the weapon in about 1/330th of cases. ...]But to put that statistic in perspective, a quick look on keepandbeararms.com (http://www.keepandbeararms.com/) shows nine reports published in mainstream media during the period 11 March 2011 to 10 April 2011 of private citizens firing their guns in self defense.

To add further perspective, FBI UCR data (http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_15.html), shows 165 justifiable homicides by private citizens with handguns in 2009 (the chart shows justifiable homicides by private citizens broken down by weapon and year for the period 2005 to 2009). For the purposes of the justifiable homicide data, the FBI defines "justifiable homicide" as "The killing of a felon, during the commission of a felony, by a private citizen." So of course the figure does not reflect all instances in which a private citizen fired a gun in justified self defense.

The point of the foregoing is that although the odds are that a private citizen might be able to successfully defend himself with a gun without firing a shot, in an appreciable number of self defense incidents, a private citizen did have to fire his (or her) gun.

So while it may be likely that you (1) will be able to go through life without ever needing your gun for self defense; and (2) if you do need it, you could successfully defend yourself without firing it, your particular violent encounter could be like one of those experienced by one of the people in those news stories referenced above, or who anonymously appear in the FBI justifiable homicide data, who did need to fire his or her gun in self defense.

ZombieTactics
04-12-2011, 8:45 AM
... So while it may be likely that you (1) will be able to go through life without ever needing your gun for self defense; and (2) if you do need it, you could successfully defend yourself without firing it, your particular violent encounter could be like one of those experienced by one of the people in those news stories referenced above, or who anonymously appear in the FBI justifiable homicide data, who did need to fire his or her gun in self defense.
And if I were such an individual, your information says nothing at all about whether C1 did, would or could confer an advantage over C3. I'll concede that in some cases it would, but insist that in some cases it would not. The cases where no rounds were fired by definition were cases where C1 or C3 could not as such mattered at all. They outnumber cases where rounds ARE fired by over 300 to one. Of the cases where a round was fired ... you suggest that 38% (of that 1/330th) fired one-handed based upon a meaningless sample set which does not even address the demographic (ordinary citizens) I'm talking about. Even if I concede that your stat applies in some general way (which I do not), we're at the point where it only makes a difference in something like 1/1000th of the cases of actual defensive use of a firearm ... and this would only make sense if I were suggesting C3 carry all the time, which I am not.

I've said more than once that I carry C1 the majority of the time, and only that C3 makes sense in some cases. You and I might have an interesting discussion about "specialized cases", but you've conceded virtually the same thing in principle. I suggest nothing else, except perhaps it's really none of my business how someone else chooses to carry or how they make that choice. I'm not about to demand of those who make the choice to carry C1 all the time that they are required to defend that choice to me. It's the best "default", absent any "specialized cases".

Again it appears that your response is based upon a reflexive reaction, rather than careful analysis. You appear to have simply staked out a position, defending with any shred you can find, without even stopping to think about what those stats actually mean in their logical and natural context. I can't think of any other reason (because I submit that it's obvious you aren't stupid) why you would present such information as support for that which it cannot and does not support.

This is perhaps admirable behavior for a lawyer. I'd want you on my side in court, and be thankful for such a determined advocate. I know that cases are won with "junk science" all the time, but some of us are not baffled by the numbers and can see then for what they are. I'd invite you to carefully reconsider, and perhaps take a class in statistics. (Not an insult, some very smart people are baffled regularly by statistics)

titankeith
04-12-2011, 9:38 AM
I understand your view point. I am not opposed to people doing it your way. My way just works better for me.

When the gun is out side of my immediate possession I prefer to be as cautious as is remotely practical. When it is in my possession I have full confidence in my own abilities and prefer it be ready to rock.

But I do get the argument in favor of your method. Perhaps if I didn't do dry fire practice as often as I do I would think my method is silly too. The gun gets handled daily, where the goal is for it to be unloaded. So my way is more practical from that sense. If there were a break in, the pendulum begins to swing the other way. I get that.

I do understand caution, bruddah...I have habits that include when I hold my gun I chamber check..when I dry practice, it's in my garage...gives seperation and puts me into combat/training mode, and I have NO rounds in the garage except dummies and brass for fail-drills...even then, before beggining drills, I do chamber/magazine clears...just a habit I have...same as when I unload my weapon and lock up when I leave the house everyday....Either way, we'll do what we feel is best for us...I feel much more comfortable with one in the chamber at my nightstand, cause I know I'll not be 100% if I hear that door crash open...and when I Carry conceal, one is in the chamber because I know that I'm NOt a quick draw pro, and I know that if I have to pull it will most likely be a "seconds count" scenario...and fractions can count, and I can"t really think of why not having one in the chamber is logically a safety issue...but, I again will reiterate that TRAINING is the best way to stay alert and stay safe metally and physically....as the old sergeant on Hill Street blues used to say..."let's be careful out there!"

titankeith
04-12-2011, 9:40 AM
It seems to me that constantly un-holstering and switching from a loaded chamber to an empty one would give that person a much higher chance of a n/d then someone that always carries in a consistant manner.

Not only do I carry with a round chambered, after I cycle that round in, I pop out the mag and put one more in. I want every tactical advantage I can get, and I hope I never need to use them.

Unlike driving a jeep in whatever conditions you plan on, weather street, off road, snow or mud, I carry a gun for the moment and conditions I can't predict. I choose to be as ready as I'm able to be.

Well Said.

fiddletown
04-12-2011, 9:55 AM
... some of us not baffled by the numbers and can see then for what they are. I'd invite you to carefully reconsider, and perhaps take a class in statistics.I have taken classes in statistics, but there are limitations to the utility of statistics. Essentially, statistics are what happen to other people.

If you lose your bet that something won't happen to you, it's no longer a matter of statistics. It's a real and unpleasant thing that has actually happened to you.

And there's also the questions of what, if anything, you can to to improve your odds and of what the stakes are.

Spirit 1
04-12-2011, 10:12 AM
It just seems reasonable that, especially given such contestment, you would put forth one/some of your best examples that support your argument. I did miss your other example though. If your dangerous drive example wasn't supposed to be anything near the "best" example you can come up with to support carrying in C3, then I don't see how you can even consider my laughter an insult or take any offense.

This is a very poor example. I have ARB's in both axles, locking hubs, 4Hi/4Low, etc. The selectable components of my Jeep are selectable for very good reasons - the axles because having open differentials wears tires slower, increases maneuverability, and makes easy trails more difficult - the hubs because unlocked hubs reduces wear on the front axle for street driving and locking hubs are an easy-to-change weak link - and the transfer case because 4Hi works well in the dunes, but 4Low kicks butt in the rocks. I can give you a good reason for every component on my Jeep - I have yet to hear a good reason for carrying in condition 3 with any regularity.

If you want a good Jeep analogy, it would be this - I keep a fire extinguisher in my Jeep. I keep it within arms reach of the driver's seat instead of in the rear cargo area because I never know when I'll need it, when I do need it, I'll probably need it quick, and I can't think of a good reason why I shouldn't keep it within arms reach of the driver's seat!

Billy

Well, Billy, I believe the first step in anything regarding any firearm in any way is what? Safety! I imagine you'd agree? So, I try to center my entire ownership & use & pleasure of guns around a safe scene in all ways, however I can best do that. I don't know if you still agree there.

I prefer Con 1 carry at all times.

That doesn't mean it's the best option at all times, or that I insist on it, at all times. Why?

My personal favorite is a very dependable gun, famous for its rock solid durability and safety. But, and a big fat but: look at our threads here in any directly firearm related forum section: "Hey, guys, my fabulous, wonderful, best you can buy *** just BROKE! What do I DOOOO?" or 'Wow, I never thought it would happen to me, but..." and many other posts about an unexpected failure, misfire, AD, breakage, or bad event.

That tells me something, and so did an early experience, though a somewhat poor example: My great old Winchester 62A tube-fed .22 caliber pump, similar to a gallery gun. I was home with my dad and wanted to clean the rifle, at an early age, 8 or 9? I had already been taught safe handling by a professional firearms instructor, that same father.

I cleared the chamber, triple checked chamber for empty. I pulled the magazine tube & dumped out all the bullets. I turned it barrel down and pounded the barrel against the carpeted floor to force any more bullets out. Turned it up the other way, banged the stock butt on the floor, to force any bullet down into the action, pumped the action & checked chamber: clear. The gun was apparently safe. I would have had to point the barrel at my head and try to peer down the magazine tube if possible to check for any more rounds, but dad had been adament about dangerous things like that!

I closed the action and the gun went off, blowing a small chunk out of the fireplace! I had NOT pulled the trigger! I thought it was safe.

Dad walked in and saw the look on my face and said, "Learn anything this morning, son?"

"Yeah, dad...."

"Fine, and will you please clean my revolver when you get done with that?"

Afterwards he fixed the Winchester for me. Sure, I made a stupid mistake somewhere there, even though I did my best to be completely safe. Yes, the fault was all mine regardless. Still: I learned something, and haven't forgotten.

Maybe because of that morning a long time ago I am overly-cautious, but with no plans to change. I do see your perspective, believe me. However at any time possible I try to reduce the probability of something unfortunate happening in whatever way I can. That includes carrying unloaded at some times, but certainly NOT AT ALL TIMES! I've had enough gun fights and dead pals to know better than that.

I plan to post more this morning but one thing more here: it seems that several folks get tunnel vision if I say I "...carry unloaded at times...", and nut out because their narrow bright red emotional focus on 'carry unloaded' immediately blocks out all the rest, and they cannot see those last 2 words: AT TIMES!

Happy Jeepin to you.

Spirit 1
04-12-2011, 10:18 AM
I carry condition 3, my CCW is an RPG and its really hard for me to conceal it due to length if the grenade is locked into the tube. I feel that although this is not an ideal situation, I have to compromise due to real-world constraints.

I was thinking that maybe I should either switch my CCW to a more compact weapon where the missle fits inside the tube like a LAW but I don't want to violate the law if the weapon falls under an SBR category. The best thing I can do now is to practice my tactical speed loading with the grenade so I can work on making it ready in a armed encounter.

Thoughts?


I think you're just asking for trouble there! If you plan to get in any practice time at all the next thing you know you'll get nothing but complaints from environmentalists when your throw-away LAWS are overflowing their precious landfills. Looks like nothing but trouble there to me. Otherwise????

1savage99
04-12-2011, 11:00 AM
People who lose their cool under pressure to the extent that they cannot rack a slide to load a round are people who cannot be trusted to walk around with a round chambered.

Then by your standards neither police and military should carry load. There are enough documented incidents that we know of without including the stories we have all heard that were never reported.

I have seen both police and military freak to the point that they lost their cool... Mere civilian mortals aren' they only ones to forget to use their brain in a panic. Worse as police and military react they tend to suffer from group think and to go on auto-pilot, Remember the car shot up that had just backfired, multiple shots by multiple officers, and none of the shots even hit the targeted driver.

And we have all seen that thread where the gentleman shot himself in the drive-thru with his holstered weapon. I'm guessing it was a Glock that did not even have a slide safety. And he's carrying it around loaded in a drive thru. Great.

How many of us know officers and military folk who have had a negligent discharge? I have an Uncle who would tell the story of a one sided fire fight (no injuries) caused by a sleeping soldier. A cop friend who has a hole in his wall behind a photo to hide a negligent discharge of a "unloaded" weapon practicing his draw. The Park ranger that shot a hole in the wall unloading a visitor's rifle that started of with nothing in the chamber. The ATF agent who shot himself in a classroom demonstrating gun safety.... Every once in a while brain farts happen but injuries only occur when two or more rules are broken.

If any group has a worse reason to carry loaded then "Special Agents" or Leo's, let me know. They show up after a crime has been reported, the have general description of who is the bad guy is, they come in groups, they can wait until things are safe, they etc. All the things that mean they have the time to "rack a slide."

Now I don't believe anyone should carry unloaded, and pistols and a shotgun are your ultimate point and pull devices and easy to use for self-defense. Loading and unloading multiple times is just another possible point of error.

I don't think we should be telling our wives "now remember when the guy is trying to grab you from behind, remember to hold the pistol firmly in your right hand and with the left hand firmly rack the slde, then shoot."

No offense is meant to Military or LEO's, they have a job to due and should be able to go home to the families each night. But no special class of citizenship should be granted to them either.

Your either capable of carrying a gun or not, and its up to you to decide how to carry safely. If you screw up be ready pay the consequences with your wallet, time, or life.

Spirit 1
04-12-2011, 11:03 AM
Okay, kiddies, for those who have requested & waited breathlessly for another scenario that justifies Con 3 carry, though I shouldn't have to 'justify' my personal decisions:

First, to repeat what I've said numerous times, and what Zombie Tactics has said numerous times: I prefer Con 1 carry, with shell loaded in chamber, except for those times when I prefer Con 3, no shell loaded in chamber. It still may not get through to some that Con 1 is preferred over Con 3, except for when it is not preferred.

Con 3 Scenario: Barbecue party with family, the whole blasted gang will be there. Most if not all know that I carry, some don't like that because of fear of firearms & lack of knowledge & dumbing down of self. Of course no complaints from the oldsters & tottering old fogies in the crowd who have actual functional brains, familiarity & years of experience, but from the youngster's new 'Progressive thought': PC family members!

So I dress for occasion and carry Con 3, slipping the mag in back pocket & a single cartridge in front pocket, 2 more mags on my belt and spend the day with them. The home is secure and well locked, formidable door, fenced yard not visible from outside-front or street side, neighbors well known, sober & friendly. If anybody makes any negative comment I can instantly show that gun is unloaded & entirely safe, mag's in my pocket, not in the gun.

I know it will be late & at least getting dark when I leave and a long drive home through various areas unfamiliar to me. Just before I leave I go in the bathroom, slip the magazine in the pistol, chamber a round, reload mag with the spare bullet in my pocket. Hugs goodbye, and Aunt Esther STILL wears that gawdaful stinking gardenia perfume! Don't think her body will ever even rot in the grave.

Throughout the party I am fully armed with extra ammo, and can go Con 1 in an instant, in the extremely unlikely event that a baddie breaches the front door and makes it to the barbecue yard to steal ribs & beans at gunpoint & shoot everybody as he belches and farts.

Con 3 Scenario: Sure, I could write out a few dozen more, but the one example is sufficient to show a situation where Con 3 is preferred over Con 1. Personal safety is maintained throughout, with no threat or danger present under Threat Level Assessment yet fully prepared to go Con 1 at any time for any reason if Threat Level suddenly changes.

3 other options: leave firearm locked in my vehicle and unaccessible to me, or carry it in loaded, but in a rug or case that I have to lug around or keep an eye on. Neither of those is as good as Con 3 & on my person, and Con 1 is impractical for this scenario. Option 3: forego the party.

jamesonamac
04-12-2011, 11:26 AM
Okay, kiddies, for those who have requested & waited breathlessly for another scenario that justifies Con 3 carry, though I shouldn't have to 'justify' my personal decisions:

First, to repeat what I've said numerous times, and what Zombie Tactics has said numerous times: I prefer Con 1 carry, with shell loaded in chamber, except for those times when I prefer Con 3, no shell loaded in chamber. It still may not get through to some that Con 1 is preferred over Con 3, except for when it is not preferred.

Con 3 Scenario: Barbecue party with family, the whole blasted gang will be there. Most if not all know that I carry, some don't like that because of fear of firearms & lack of knowledge & dumbing down of self. Of course no complaints from the oldsters & tottering old fogies in the crowd who have actual functional brains, familiarity & years of experience, but from the youngster's new 'Progressive thought': PC family members!

So I dress for occasion and carry Con 3, slipping the mag in back pocket & a single cartridge in front pocket, 2 more mags on my belt and spend the day with them. The home is secure and well locked, formidable door, fenced yard not visible from outside-front or street side, neighbors well known, sober & friendly. If anybody makes any negative comment I can instantly show that gun is unloaded & entirely safe, mag's in my pocket, not in the gun.

I know it will be late & at least getting dark when I leave and a long drive home through various areas unfamiliar to me. Just before I leave I go in the bathroom, slip the magazine in the pistol, chamber a round, reload mag with the spare bullet in my pocket. Hugs goodbye, and Aunt Esther STILL wears that gawdaful stinking gardenia perfume! Don't think her body will ever even rot in the grave.

Throughout the party I am fully armed with extra ammo, and can go Con 1 in an instant, in the extremely unlikely event that a baddie breaches the front door and makes it to the barbecue yard to steal ribs & beans at gunpoint & shoot everybody as he belches and farts.

Con 3 Scenario: Sure, I could write out a few dozen more, but the one example is sufficient to show a situation where Con 3 is preferred over Con 1. Personal safety is maintained throughout, with no threat or danger present under Threat Level Assessment yet fully prepared to go Con 1 at any time for any reason if Threat Level suddenly changes.

3 other options: leave firearm locked in my vehicle and unaccessible to me, or carry it in loaded, but in a rug or case that I have to lug around or keep an eye on. Neither of those is as good as Con 3 & on my person, and Con 1 is impractical for this scenario. Option 3: forego the party.

Whatever floats your boat. It's my firm belief that the person who constantly switches from a loaded chamber to unload chamber is putting himself at a much higher risk of a negligent discharge then the guy who always carries chambered.

FWIW as far as your scenario, only other person I can think of that carries an unloaded gun with a bullet in his front pocket is Barney Fife.

DannyZRC
04-12-2011, 11:32 AM
why would you try to reinforce the idea that you're being "safe and responsible" by keeping the gun unloaded with no mag? and isn't that con4? =p.

You're free to do as you wish, of course, but I really think you can make better choices.

I think your specific example highlights 2 downsides, one of which is the time and dexterity required to bring the firearm to bear, and the other is that this time is compounded by the broad decision space your firearm operating regimen occupies. (you don't ALWAYS carry C3/C4/C1, you mix and match, which means you always have to be aware of the state of the firearm and possibly have to structure your manipulations to make sure you're moving to/from the correct conditions.)

Spirit 1
04-12-2011, 11:58 AM
Whatever floats your boat. It's my firm belief that the person who constantly switches from a loaded chamber to unload chamber is putting himself at a much higher risk of a negligent discharge then the guy who always carries chambered.

FWIW as far as your scenario, only other person I can think of that carries an unloaded gun with a bullet in his front pocket is Barney Fife.

Pretty obvious what your agenda is, clear as day matter of fact. You'll argue for the sake of arguing, and entirely ignore evidence that's presented if you don't agree with it. In some cases that's called bigotry, in all it's called closed minded & narrow minded.

There's nothing to fault in what I posted, and you do not even address it at all because of that. You ignore it, to make your non-point. Like other narrow-minded people, if you cannot be superior in an argument you fall to the level of cheap insults, to supposedly prove superiority.

You make a back door accusation, but it's entirely invalid. "...the person who constantly switches from a loaded chamber to unload chamber is putting himself at a much higher risk of a negligent discharge then the guy who always carries chambered."

Where in what I wrote do I constantly switch from loaded to unloaded?

Where specifically have I created a more dangerous situation? By putting a mag in an unloaded pistol, racking the slide once, adding to the mag?

For all the guys that argue practice, practice, practice, which I agree with: where is the action described above any more unsafe than what one NORMALLY does with a pistol during practice, practice, practice? Or when cleaning? Or when removing from storing?

The wisecrack about Barney fife is a really low, cheap shot, but it's not me that it makes a fool of in the end. Disgusting.

Spirit 1
04-12-2011, 12:04 PM
why would you try to reinforce the idea that you're being "safe and responsible" by keeping the gun unloaded with no mag? and isn't that con4? =p.

You're free to do as you wish, of course, but I really think you can make better choices.

I think your specific example highlights 2 downsides, one of which is the time and dexterity required to bring the firearm to bear, and the other is that this time is compounded by the broad decision space your firearm operating regimen occupies. (you don't ALWAYS carry C3/C4/C1, you mix and match, which means you always have to be aware of the state of the firearm and possibly have to structure your manipulations to make sure you're moving to/from the correct conditions.)

Is a gun unloaded with no mag safer than a gun loaded in Con 1?

For the rest, I have no problems figuring out if the gun is loaded or how to use it.

And yes, excuse me, that's not Con 3. You can change to read as Con 3 if you like.

I do not see where you described any 'better choices' to fit those circumstances. What are those better choices you mention?

ZombieTactics
04-12-2011, 12:07 PM
I have taken classes in statistics, but there are limitations to the utility of statistics. Essentially, statistics are what happen to other people. Given the limits of statistics, isn't it all the more important to apply them carefully and sensibly? Is your position that stats don't matter, or that they only matter when you want them to, or that they are to be ignored when you don't like their implications? If you don't like the stats and their implications, then you base your position on what exactly? A maybe based on a could-be because of a "I-can't-predict-it" founded on a "what if" assumption is hardly a solid footing to believe anything, much less an insistence that others act upon it as you dictate.

If you lose your bet that something won't happen to you, it's no longer a matter of statistics. It's a real and unpleasant thing that has actually happened to you. Which means what exactly? If your position is that ANY chance of X is too great, then you should start worrying a lot more about slipping in the shower, food poisoning ... for heaven's sake don't drive a car! ... than me carrying (mostly) C1 vs. (sometimes) C3.

And there's also the questions of what, if anything, you can to to improve your odds and of what the stakes are. You're edging ever closer back to the "you never know" & "the future is unknown" line of non-argument. I am confident in my analysis of the particulars. If you can give me rational cause to believe otherwise, please do so. Otherwise, I must find myself of the opinion that your position lacks any merit I should consider.

jamesonamac
04-12-2011, 12:57 PM
Pretty obvious what your agenda is, clear as day matter of fact. You'll argue for the sake of arguing, and entirely ignore evidence that's presented if you don't agree with it. In some cases that's called bigotry, in all it's called closed minded & narrow minded.

There's nothing to fault in what I posted, and you do not even address it at all because of that. You ignore it, to make your non-point. Like other narrow-minded people, if you cannot be superior in an argument you fall to the level of cheap insults, to supposedly prove superiority.

You make a back door accusation, but it's entirely invalid. "...the person who constantly switches from a loaded chamber to unload chamber is putting himself at a much higher risk of a negligent discharge then the guy who always carries chambered."

Where in what I wrote do I constantly switch from loaded to unloaded?

Where specifically have I created a more dangerous situation? By putting a mag in an unloaded pistol, racking the slide once, adding to the mag?

For all the guys that argue practice, practice, practice, which I agree with: where is the action described above any more unsafe than what one NORMALLY does with a pistol during practice, practice, practice? Or when cleaning? Or when removing from storing?

The wisecrack about Barney fife is a really low, cheap shot, but it's not me that it makes a fool of in the end. Disgusting.
First off, you are the one with an agenda, not me. You are trying to convince people that how you carry is somehow good. You keep coming up with "scenarios" to try to prove your point. Because I don't agree with you I'm "bigoted," "narrow minded," etc?

Second, nothing to fault in what you wrote? How about this: Why does anyone even know you are carrying? Concealed means just that. If you were talking about open carry, you just made yourself illegal when you went to the john and racked one and left the confines of the house.

Third, you are the one that posts that you switch from Con3 to Con1 as you see fit. Honestly, how am I making a "back door accusation" when you clearly admit doing so? Someone has a higher chance of a N/D racking a round than someone who is holstered. If you can't see the logic in that, I can't help you.

Fourth, my comment about Barney Fife was not a wise crack. Your scenario had you with an empty gun and a round in your pocket. Who, other then Barney and you, does this?

You can come up with all the scenarios you can think of. You will never convince me your method is a good one. Can't we just leave it at that?

fiddletown
04-12-2011, 1:13 PM
...I must find myself of the opinion that your position lacks any merit I should consider. And I am definitely of the opinion that your position lacks any merit I should consider. We are at an impasse and I suspect always will be.

So my comments are not for the purpose of convincing you of anything. They are for the purpose of putting another perspective on the table for others to consider, should they choose.

...Is your position that stats don't matter, or that they only matter when you want them to, or that they are to be ignored when you don't like their implications?....No, my position is that statistics should not necessarily be the final basis for the determination of conduct.

Statistically, as you have pointed out, it is extremely unlikely that anyone will have to fire a gun in self defense.

On the other hand, we know that in 2009, 165 private citizens did indeed fire their guns in justified self defense and take the life of another human being. I suspect that it would be small comfort to those 165 people who endured the ordeal of the violent event, and the travails of the aftermath, that actuarial science says that it shouldn't have happened.

I also suspect that those 165 people are glad that although actuarial science said that they should not have needed to shoot anyone, they were nonetheless prepared and able to take the necessary action.

...If your position is that ANY chance of X is too great, then you should start worrying a lot more about slipping in the shower, food poisoning ... for heaven's sake don't drive a car! ... than C1 vs. C3...Life is a hazardous activity, and the world is not a safe place in which to play.

In the final analysis, we pick and choose the risks we are willing to take, and the actions we are willing to take to mitigate those risks, based at least in part on our values and our vision of how we want to live our life. I'm not going to climb into bed during a thunderstorm and pull the covers over my head, but I'm also not going to stand out in an empty field. I like to drive my car, but I'm not going to drive on bald tires; and I will wear my seat belt.

And I'm going to carry my gun whenever I legally can. And whenever I can --


I will carry it the same way;
in a well designed holster covering the trigger guard and securely retaining the gun
worn on my belt on my strong side;
concealed but accessible;
and with a round in the chamber (I am not interested in accepting the risk that I will not have both hands available if I need my gun quickly).

DannyZRC
04-12-2011, 2:38 PM
Is a gun unloaded with no mag safer than a gun loaded in Con 1?

in an absolute sense, yes, in a real sense? maybe.
I think it depends on the gun. I'm not a fan of glocks (somewhat of an anti-glock proselytizer in fact), and I believe the relative safety of a glock is significantly different between it being chambered vs unchambered. An example of a gun where I don't believe a significant difference to exist is a Beretta pattern firearm with the safety applied.

For the rest, I have no problems figuring out if the gun is loaded or how to use it.

And yes, excuse me, that's not Con 3. You can change to read as Con 3 if you like.

I do not see where you described any 'better choices' to fit those circumstances. What are those better choices you mention?

As I wrote in my earlier post, a firearm has to satisfy (and hopefully maximize) certain criteria for readiness and safety.

to navigate the world and it's different situations, people choose different solutions to maximize the fulfillment of these criteria.

3 examples are:

#1 The Holster: The Firearm + Operator system in question is believed by the operator to be not particularly safe when outside of a semi-rigid holster with at least passive retention of the firearm, and that the firearm must be maintained in the holstered state at all times to satisfy safety and maximize readiness and ensure consistent operation. The accepted tradeoff is the necessity of extra caution and ritual vigilance.

#2 The Decocker and/or Safety: The Firearm + Operator system in question is believed by the operator to be maximally safe and ready without the aid of a holster, usually through some extra discharge-preventative measures found on the pistol, to provide for a reduced criticality of the storage method and ensure consistent operation. The accepted tradeoff is some degree of extra difficulty in making ready and shooting the pistol.

#3 The Selective Chambering: The Firearm + Operator system in question is believed by the operator to maximize safety and readiness with a round chambered in some situations, while requiring an empty chamber for others. Operator in question must change the state of the pistol's ammunition as required. The accepted tradeoff is inconsistent operation, and the risks assumed during any extra administrative loading/unloading when the condition of the pistol is changed.

These are the strict applications (though #3 is sort of by definition a non-strict application). lot of people with #1 guns will occasionally use #3 methods, people with with #2 guns may switch the state of the gun between #1 and #2 (USP C&L vs Decocked, or a beretta decocked vs decocked and on safe), and they are eroding their own consistency of operation advantage.

#1 is the usually espoused method with today's groupthink (whether it be correct or not, it's certainly groupthink).

I'm a #2 guy.

Spirit 1
04-12-2011, 6:37 PM
First off, you are the one with an agenda, not me. You are trying to convince people that how you carry is somehow good. You keep coming up with "scenarios" to try to prove your point. Because I don't agree with you I'm "bigoted," "narrow minded," etc?

Second, nothing to fault in what you wrote? How about this: Why does anyone even know you are carrying? Concealed means just that. If you were talking about open carry, you just made yourself illegal when you went to the john and racked one and left the confines of the house.

Third, you are the one that posts that you switch from Con3 to Con1 as you see fit. Honestly, how am I making a "back door accusation" when you clearly admit doing so? Someone has a higher chance of a N/D racking a round than someone who is holstered. If you can't see the logic in that, I can't help you.

Fourth, my comment about Barney Fife was not a wise crack. Your scenario had you with an empty gun and a round in your pocket. Who, other then Barney and you, does this?

You can come up with all the scenarios you can think of. You will never convince me your method is a good one. Can't we just leave it at that?

Apparently there's some reading comprehension problems going on here. Within that you're entirely mistaken! Like others, you're reading stuff into my posts that simply isn't there!

There's not one place where I have set out to convince anybody of anything at all. I have repeatedly stated in various ways that it is simply a matter of my personal preference. Because so very many people cannot accept that at face value, and insist on trying to beat me down or make me look like a fool, for my personal preference, I have replied to many posts aimed in my direction. That is what resulted in all this ink space on my part. I could care less what anybody else does with their guns, as long as they don't endanger others needlessly.

You're mistaken, I have not come up with any scenarios to 'prove my point' at all. I have been challenged several times to produce a scenario explaining why my 'sometimes' and 'occassional' preference for unloaded or Con 3 carry is justified or chosen. Therefore I have responded, as politely as my own emotions allow, in explanation. Please take time to read all the posts to see if I have actually been trying to convince anybody of my superiority, cleverness, better knowledge, better training, better experience or whatever. You won't find it buddy!

And no, the narrow minded, myopic agenda has to do with your absolute insistence on trying to make me look bad or to prove me wrong, all for your own reasons or satisfaction. The particular way it was phrased did not call you a bigot, but stated that the same sort of agenda is what propels bigotry: "I'm better than you [or 'you people']" type of thinking. I didn't say it wasn't bigoted either.

Under your headings above, 'Second': Read what was written, about who was present: FAMILY!!! The day the government's laws ever try to control what I say to my family, or how I say it, or when I say it, well, you'll probably read about the results in the papers! I expect you might be of the same mindset there.

Also under 'third, here's exactly what I had written to you regarding 'backdoor accusation':

"You make a back door accusation, but it's entirely invalid. "...the person who constantly switches from a loaded chamber to unload chamber is putting himself at a much higher risk of a negligent discharge then the guy who always carries chambered."

Where in what I wrote do I constantly switch from loaded to unloaded?"

It was you who made the backdoor accusation that I put myself [or other people] at risk unecessarily by constantly switching from loaded to unloaded. That is an untrue statement about constantly switching back & forth, and it's an insult to imply that I continuosly put myself [or other people] in danger, at risk of harm or injury. That implies that I don't know how to properly handle a firearm safely, and that I'm dangerous to be around, and also implies poor training, lack of knowledge etc. etc. which I happen to take as insulting. So would you if it was headed in your direction.

In addition, regarding relative safety, there doesn't have to be any more loading or unloading than Con 1! Leaving house, holster Con 3 pistol. When getting to a place where it's desired to load chamber, do so. Carry out the business at hand, head back home: unload gun for return trip. That's one loading, one unloading.

I always check a weapon at home anyway, wipe it down, maybe oil it, peel the hide & hang it: SOP here. Not one bit of extra danger, or extra loading - unloading, when I choose to carry Con 3, transitioning to Con 1, back to Con 3, at least when & how I personally do it.

You can soft peddle the Barney Fife comment, but everybody here knows that's almost always used as an insult to belittle someone in some way: common joke about fumbling Barney Fife. I took it exactly the way you meant it. It was added to make me look like an inept fumbling idiot.

On your final comment, here comes that point again: I never set out to convince anybody of anything, but rather to state my habits, plain & simple. In the beginning, what I stated was my preference. Throughout, I have stated my preference. That's it! Because of retorts I spent lots of time defending myself.

I have nothing against you, no grudge, don't know you, and do not hold grudges against anyone, so I still don't have anything against you at all! So, just like I set out in the beginnning, I'd love to leave it at simply stating personal preference. I'm positive we have far more in common than in any disagreement.

My memory isn't good enough to keep up with grudges, so I don't have any burning issues with anybody else here either.

negolien
04-12-2011, 7:50 PM
My 2 cents is carry the way you want doesn't matter to me :<). I carry differant depending on the condition myself but it's what makes me comfy. What someone else thinks /shrug could give a rats butt lol especailly on some troll forum site. I can see both sides but some can't obviously not surprising here at calguns or any other forum to be honest.

miles85916
04-12-2011, 7:54 PM
That video is a little disturbing.

Spirit 1
04-12-2011, 8:46 PM
My 2 cents is carry the way you want doesn't matter to me :<). I carry differant depending on the condition myself but it's what makes me comfy. What someone else thinks /shrug could give a rats butt lol especailly on some troll forum site. I can see both sides but some can't obviously not surprising here at calguns or any other forum to be honest.


Ahhh, truly a breath of fresh air! Makes sense to me!

tacticalcity
04-13-2011, 4:43 PM
Originally Posted by rogervzv
People who lose their cool under pressure to the extent that they cannot rack a slide to load a round are people who cannot be trusted to walk around with a round chambered.

My concern is less that I would loose my cool (provided I trained myself to do it) and fail to remember to chamber the round and more that there simply would not be time to do it. Not only do you have to remember to do it. You have to pause for a beat and think about what condition your weapon is in at the moment. That is critical time lost. Especially if you have years of muscle memory invested in reacting to your weapon having a round in the chamber. I have no doubt that if I spent the same amount of time training myself to pause fot that beat to remember what condition I am in, I would be able to remember to wrack the slide before pointing in and hearing a "click". But now my response time for both a full and empty chamber are drastically slowed down. Training myself to wrack the slide no matter what condition I am is not an option either. Since for reliability sake I don't top off my magazines (doing so is the leading cause of malfunctions) I simply cannot afford to donate a round to the ammo gods, especially in the middle of a firefight.

Think about the point at which you (the average Joe Citizen) would actually draw his weapon. You're not a cop (an assumption on my part for the sake of the argument). So if you draw our weapon and are wrong you could be in hot water. You are likely going to be a tad caught of guard. Here life was chugging along normally and now the situation has changed to the surreal. You are likely to be a little hesitant to believe what is happening is actually happening. Odds are unless you see "gun" you are not going to actually start to reach for your weapon, you are just going to observe. If you do see gun a mad rush of adrenaline and shock is going to hit you like a brick wall. If the bad guy does not see you, then you'll have time to wrack the slide. But since Murphy's law is alive and well, you're not gonna be that lucky. The bad buy will see you reach. Remember, he is already drawn. You get your gun clear of the leather/kydex...

1) If you had a round in the chamber you could point in and fire or fire from the hip if absolutely necessary. It is going to be a miracle if you get good hits before he can fire. And even if you do there is a damn good chance he will still be able to fire at you. Here is hoping you are better trained and he doesn't get a good sight picture

2) If you do not have a round in the chamber. You give the bad guy twice as much time to get a good hit. It is also a lot less stressful of shot because he is not yet staring down the barrel of your gun or seeing you actually fire. You are seriously stacking the odds in the bad guys favor.

Having seen countless drills of how quickly somebody can fire when they have no regard for who else gets hit, that is just not a chance I am willing to take. Having reached a point where my reactions are all muscle memory, I know that if I have to pause for a beat and ponder what condition my weapon is in, I will loose any benefit my years of training have given me. So for me the negatives far out way any positive I can gain from not having a round in the chamber.

Originally Posted by Spirit 1
OK, kiddies, for those who have requested & waited breathlessly for another scenario that justifies Con 3 carry, though I shouldn't have to 'justify' my personal decisions.

Well I appreciate the scenario, as it is the first I have seen that is not immediately countered by "get more training" or "buy a holster that meets your specific needs".

The first thought I had, is that loaded or not your hippie friends and relatives are still going to freak out and be judgemental and act wierd towards you. There simply is no getting around it. The anti's in my life certainly would not be appeased by it. So that kind of invalidates the scenerio right there. But for the sake of the argument lets give you that one and assume it would make them happy as can be to see it wasn't actually loaded and that made everyhing hunky-dory with them.

I will agree that a BBQ in your back yard is a bit different than walking around the worst parts of Oakland at 3am. So I can see how you would feel safer. Yes an incident could still occur, but the odds are more in your favor. The expectation of an incident goes down with all those people there in a nice area vs. being alone in the ghetto in the dark. I also, as I hinted at above, can understand how the pressure from non-gun owners, and some cases the wife, can cause us to compromise what we would prefer to do with regards to firearms.

A lot of other complicated issues that are involved would have me looking for another solution, however.

The biggest reason I have for not doing this (other than a firm belief that there will not be enough time to react if I did) is that it messes with muscle memory. Muscle memory that took a lot of time to aquire - and would take an enourmous amount of time and training to overide. My body is trained to draw and fire in a specific way. Beat for beat, number for number, it is instictual at this point. All the thought process is focused on confirming the threat, and verifying the target. The drawing of the weapon and the pointing in happens on its own. If have to stop and ponder? Hum, what condition is my gun in? Do I wrack or don't I? That all gets screwed up. It is just too risky in my opinion. I want the gun handling to be muscle memory so I can focus on making sure the threat is indeed real and the shot is clear. I want to simplify the things that can be simplified, so I can focus my attention and thought process on what cannot. Sure I could spend countless hours mastering how to both. But no matter how good I got, that time to think and remember what condition I am is going to be time lost. So the cons just seem too high to me. But that is me.

Another member pointed out that constantly switching between conditions of carry would increase the risk of NDs. I am not sure I agree. I wanted to at first, but the more I think about I think this falls back to how much training, practice, and confidence you have in your gun handling skills. I change the condition of my firearms constantly throughout the day with chamber-check, mag-check, chamber-check drills. I do it when I pick a gun up. I do it before I holster the gun. I do it when I remove the gun from the holster (unless I am firing). I do it when I put the gun away. I do when I want to clear the gun and show it to somebody or let them handle it. I do it constantly. I don't see how switching between conditions is any different. For me the issue is a combination of reaction time and messing with muscle memory that was very hard earned.

Surviving the fire fight is going to be challenging enough. I have no desire to make it even harder. So anything that messes with my muscle memory had damn well better have some dramatic upsides to it. For me, I just don't see 'em. I definately can see the cons, but not the pros are sort of iffy to me. Maybe someday I will find one and say to myself, darn that guy on Calguns was right? Who knows?

Soldier415
04-13-2011, 5:32 PM
A few random comments regarding the discussion at hand:

There seems to be more than a bit of chest-puffery and pissing-match nonsense on the part of some. I would submit to you that if you really think condition-of-carry is some badge of manhood, tacticool-ness or awesomeness, then you've effectively disqualified yourself from being taken seriously. Please go play with your toys and let the adults have a conversation. :rolleyes:

Stats & facts (which are not always the same thing) are stubborn things. There have been a lot of comments to the effect of "how do you know ...?", "what if ...?", etc. based upon the raw unsupported assumption that the absolute worst case is what will happen ... or at least that this is the case that one should prepared for, or risk otherwise incurring the "you aren't worthy" and "you're too paranoid to carry" wrath of their peers. ;)

In this respect, I find it interesting to note that only some fraction of a percentage of us will ever find ourselves in a position where we need to defend ourselves. I've been there, so that statistic might ring a bit hollow personally, but the facts are what they are nonetheless.

Of the cases where a citizen uses a gun to defend themselves, they only fire the weapon in 1 out of 330 or so cases. That's 1 330th people, not even a 3rd or a 30th.

In 87% of the cases where LE are attacked and/or killed, they didn't even draw their sidearm.

I can demonstrate that the difference between C1 and C3 amounts to only hundredths of a second.

So it occurs to me that all of this dogmatic, almost religious insistence that C1 is THE way and the ONLY way (perhaps even the truth and the light) for everyone at all times (forever and ever amen) is really about splitting tiny little hairs regarding situations which are among the very most unlikely imaginable.

The evidence seems to indicate that mindset is a far, far greater determiner of survival than whether one can cock their head to the side and tell you "cocked-n-locked" with gravel in their voice and steely-eyed self-assurance of testicular fortitude they imagine such an attitude confers upon them. (I guess the C0 guy will get all the chicks though, huh?)

It brings into open question who is being paranoid and who is basing their opinions upon a calm rendering of reality. Past a certain point the whole thing begins to take on the tone of a SpinalTap-inspired farce, with amps "going up to 11" ... sheesh.

And seriously ... carry how you wish. Instruct your students however you wish. I'd never for a minute call into question your manhood over your decision in this regard. I'll do the same (which is usually, but not always C1) for whatever reasons seem good to me, confident that my training and mindset are sufficient to fill in the hundredths-of-a second advantage the rest of you imagine you have, thanks.
ZT,

I have seen that you have taken a lot of training courses, and are well versed/trained. My only question to you is, how many deadly force/life threatening encounters have you been in where you have had to use a firearm as a defensive tool?

ZombieTactics
04-13-2011, 6:03 PM
... I have seen that you have taken a lot of training courses, and are well versed/trained. My only question to you is, how many deadly force/life threatening encounters have you been in where you have had to use a firearm as a defensive tool?

I don't wish to be squirrelly about your question, but I'll happily answer it if you'll answer a couple of mine first:


Why does the question matter to you, or what do you think you can determine from the answer?
If I answered that I am retired LE or military (and could verify it), what would you determine in either of those cases?


And I swear to you I will answer your question truthfully and completely if you'll answer mine first.

BTW ~ I love your sig line. It's very close to one of my favorites: "If your stance and grip are perfect, you're probably about to be shot ... MOVE!"

Spirit 1
04-13-2011, 11:10 PM
Well I appreciate the scenario, as it is the first I have seen that is not immediately countered by "get more training" or "buy a holster that meets your specific needs".

The first thought I had, is that loaded or not your hippie friends and relatives are still going to freak out and be judgemental and act wierd towards you. There simply is no getting around it. The anti's in my life certainly would not be appeased by it. So that kind of invalidates the scenerio right there. But for the sake of the argument lets give you that one and assume it would make them happy as can be to see it wasn't actually loaded and that made everyhing hunky-dory with them.

I will agree that a BBQ in your back yard is a bit different than walking around the worst parts of Oakland at 3am. So I can see how you would feel safer. Yes an incident could still occur, but the odds are more in your favor. The expectation of an incident goes down with all those people there in a nice area vs. being alone in the ghetto in the dark. I also, as I hinted at above, can understand how the pressure from non-gun owners, and some cases the wife, can cause us to compromise what we would prefer to do with regards to firearms.

A lot of other complicated issues that are involved would have me looking for another solution, however.

The biggest reason I have for not doing this (other than a firm belief that there will not be enough time to react if I did) is that it messes with muscle memory. Muscle memory that took a lot of time to aquire - and would take an enourmous amount of time and training to overide. My body is trained to draw and fire in a specific way. Beat for beat, number for number, it is instictual at this point. All the thought process is focused on confirming the threat, and verifying the target. The drawing of the weapon and the pointing in happens on its own. If have to stop and ponder? Hum, what condition is my gun in? Do I wrack or don't I? That all gets screwed up. It is just too risky in my opinion. I want the gun handling to be muscle memory so I can focus on making sure the threat is indeed real and the shot is clear. I want to simplify the things that can be simplified, so I can focus my attention and thought process on what cannot. Sure I could spend countless hours mastering how to both. But no matter how good I got, that time to think and remember what condition I am is going to be time lost. So the cons just seem too high to me. But that is me.

Another member pointed out that constantly switching between conditions of carry would increase the risk of NDs. I am not sure I agree. I wanted to at first, but the more I think about I think this falls back to how much training, practice, and confidence you have in your gun handling skills. I change the condition of my firearms constantly throughout the day with chamber-check, mag-check, chamber-check drills. I do it when I pick a gun up. I do it before I holster the gun. I do it when I remove the gun from the holster (unless I am firing). I do it when I put the gun away. I do when I want to clear the gun and show it to somebody or let them handle it. I do it constantly. I don't see how switching between conditions is any different. For me the issue is a combination of reaction time and messing with muscle memory that was very hard earned.

Surviving the fire fight is going to be challenging enough. I have no desire to make it even harder. So anything that messes with my muscle memory had damn well better have some dramatic upsides to it. For me, I just don't see 'em. I definately can see the cons, but not the pros are sort of iffy to me. Maybe someday I will find one and say to myself, darn that guy on Calguns was right? Who knows?

You kiddin' me?? Hah, they all disowned me years ago, 'The nut'. But if somebody did scale a fence & come in blasting, I've got plenty of warm body empty skull cover to duck behind while I slam a mag & rack haha! About the only thing that a scenario like that would actually help is they might possibly NOT call the police to see if carrying a loaded gun was LEGAL???

On the Oakland comment, many years ago I had just finished an after hours job [the legal type!] on a bank and let myself out, walked over to a payphone to check in with a dispatcher. I'd gotten there just about 3:00 PM, broad daylight, now it was maybe 10 PM at night. Called in to my buddy in dispatch, check next assignment for the morning. "Okay, buddy, all's tidy here, what's next?"

[B]NOTE: He was from that area! "Where are you, man?" and I named the city in the bay area. "Well ****, I know that, man, where ARE youse?" So I squinted up at the street signs and named the cross streets. He yelled, "HOLY ****, oh **** man, LOOK AROUND!! GET OUTTA THERE MAN!" and hung up! I did just that. Looked around and thought 'Holy ****!!!!' Day had turned to darkness of night, and 'They' were all there, all around, creeping, crawling, slithering, twitching, tweaking and moving my way, the night people! Snapped off the loop, slight tug and hand remained under my coat with tumb on safety as I made it for the truck, FAST! Yipes!!

Mistake: NEVER should have stepped out that door before reconnoitering the landscape & THREAT LEVEL!But it was so nice & peaceful in broad daylight when I had gone in....

I agree strongly with your scenario there about always carrying EXACTLY the same way, because of YOUR training/practice & continual drills! 'Muscle memory' if that is how you trained. Gotcha on the check, check, re-check to know condition too, yep! Me too.

In my particular case, and I have to be careful what/how I say, I have an unusual variety of experience and unusual habits myself, due to highly unusual 'Job descriptions' and training.

Because of that, a fluid state of change was the key to survival, and focusing on moment-by-moment Threat Levels continually was the only possibility of success and/or survival. Even another person's eye pupils suddenly dilating might be enough to tell you something's coming down, now! Almost like being in water and not forgetting you're swimming, even if you change strokes? Much like a soldier on the battlefield, he can grab a pistol, rifle, launcher, Gerber Combat or improvise & instantly be familiar with it, sorta like that. It's an impossible to describe, tactile NOW! state. When we're there, one is much more intimately absorbed in those things than somebody going about their normal daily business, trying to do the 'Ho-hum' thing and enjoy life as it ticks off.

So yes, training & experience dictates the best option for each of us, regardless of which is chosen.

For me the bottom line is that every one of us should study to know exactly how we're wired, what's best for US, learn to do it as well as possible, and do it!

Thanks...

Justintoxicated
04-14-2011, 12:10 AM
Guy in the video didn't have a chance, but maybe he could have gotten in some dying revenge if he had one chambered, hard to say though, he was probably already in shock by the time he drew his gun. :(

.40Cal
04-14-2011, 9:01 AM
Practice, practice, practice.... This is the bottom line, we all know & agree.

However, this incident happened in India, where every cartridge is accounted for by the police/law. One doesn't have the freedom to buy or shoot hundreds of rounds a month. Secondly, not too many shooting ranges/places available. Third, guns are very rarely owned by non-leo people...so, when someone has one he thinks he has the answer to control "any" situation. And everyone would fear him...just cuz he HAS A GUN! After all, he's the rare baddass who owns a gun. It may help their ego, and a status item to show off to friends/family. He may also believe that he "could" actually use it, if needed. The dumb part is he never realizes that he has no skills to use it...in "any" situation...

Soldier415
04-14-2011, 9:29 AM
I don't wish to be squirrelly about your question, but I'll happily answer it if you'll answer a couple of mine first:


Why does the question matter to you, or what do you think you can determine from the answer?
If I answered that I am retired LE or military (and could verify it), what would you determine in either of those cases?


And I swear to you I will answer your question truthfully and completely if you'll answer mine first.

BTW ~ I love your sig line. It's very close to one of my favorites: "If your stance and grip are perfect, you're probably about to be shot ... MOVE!"

No worries, happy to answer.

Question 1. It is a question I routinely ask because even when you train and train and train, and have done everything to prepare yourself for that moment, everything is academic until you have had to perform and fight for your life. That's not to say that people who have not been in that encounter do not know their stuff, its just a matter of perspective.

You can understand in theory, and tick off the list of things that happen to your body in that encounter...but again, until you have experienced it first hand it is academic.

Case in point, me. I'm a SSG in a Sapper unit. I am well trained and a Small Arms Instructor at the Company and Battalion level. I did everything possible to prepare myself mentally, physically and emotionally prior to the latest deployment to Afghanistan as well as ensuring I was extremely technically and tactically proficient. I was as well prepared as I could be, but for me it was all academic and theory at that point as my reactions under fire had never been tested.

Well, over there it was tested and tested and I experienced firsthand what before had just been a learned understanding as far as what happens to your body in a deadly encounter and how your training can overcome it if you train as you fight.

I am fond of saying "In a deadly encounter you do not rise to the occasion, you fall to the lowest level of your training".

So to succintly answer the question, if someone has not been in a deadly force encounter it is hard for me to consider them to be speaking from a position of firsthand knowledge and authority when they are talking about what happens in a gun fight.

Question 2:
At face value neither of those would mean anything to me. You could be retired LE, but been a patrol officer in a sleepy town where nothing happens and never had to draw your firearm. Or, you could have been a SWAT team member or assigned to a dangerous area where you are in a fight multiple times per week. Its the details that matter.

As for military, same thing. At face value being retired Military doesnt mean anything to me. You could have sat behind a desk and never deployed your entire career, or you may have deployments but sat in a supply room or TOC on them. Or you could be a ranger/SF who has extensive experience in the fight with his dick in the dirt. Again, its the details that matter.

Being LE or Military does not automatically mean that they have some Jedi-like mastery of firearms that the rest of us can never be able to attain.


I hope that asnwers your two questions. I want to make the point that I am not trying to be a Richard Cranium, I genuinely wanted to know the answer to the initial question just to broaden my understanding of your postings.

tacticalcity
04-14-2011, 9:55 AM
Guy in the video didn't have a chance, but maybe he could have gotten in some dying revenge if he had one chambered, hard to say though, he was probably already in shock by the time he drew his gun. :(

I don't know about that. There was a lot of time between his pointing in and hearing a soft "click", and getting to try and chamber a round only to hear it go "click" again before he got hit. And there was time after he got hit where he would still been able to continue the fight.

If his firearm were loaded and he had proper training he would have had an excellent chance of survival. He could have gotten a full magazine worth of well placed shots and finished a tactical or emergency reload all in the time it took them to make him fall to his knees, and he could of still continued fighting at the point. His two attackers took a lot of time to do their job.

It is not just that a guy gets killed in the video. It is how many things go wrong for him all at once. Things that they warn you about in training. Things that you fear Murphy's law will throw at you. On thing right after another.

SOMETHING THAT OCCURRED TO ME

Watching the video it also looked like the reason he may have thought the chamber was loaded because it should have been loaded, but because his magazine was not fully seated wracking the slide did not chamber a round a round. Not only have I seen this happen to a boat load of people during courses and on the range, it used to happen to me all the time when I was first getting into training regularly.

There are two solutions to this to prevent it from happening to you...

First, do not top off your magazines. For 10 rounders download them two rounds and for hi-caps download them by three. This relaxes the tension on the spring tension and allows the magazine to seat properly. Whether your springs are new or old, this is a good idea. The leading cause of malfunctions in a semi-auto is that the spring tension prevents the magazine from seating properly. It locks into place enough not to fall out, but not far enough so that a round will "reliably" chamber. Sounds crazy right? You don't have enough ammo as it is thanks to hi-cap bans and now you're gonna go with even less ammo? Ask yourself this. What good is a full magazine if rounds won't chamber? None at all my friend. It is just a paperweight. Better to go with 8 rounds than to go with none.

Second, after chambering the round do a chamber check. Gently pull back on the slide far enough to look into it and see brass, but not so far you start to eject the round. No brass, and you know you have a problem. Not only do you need to chamber a round but you need to re-seat the magazine and figure out why a round did not chamber the first time around (see solution one above for a probable reason why).

tacticalcity
04-14-2011, 10:35 AM
No worries, happy to answer.

Question 1. It is a question I routinely ask because even when you train and train and train, and have done everything to prepare yourself for that moment, everything is academic until you have had to perform and fight for your life. That's not to say that people who have not been in that encounter do not know their stuff, its just a matter of perspective.

You can understand in theory, and tick off the list of things that happen to your body in that encounter...but again, until you have experienced it first hand it is academic.

Case in point, me. I'm a SSG in a Sapper unit. I am well trained and a Small Arms Instructor at the Company and Battalion level. I did everything possible to prepare myself mentally, physically and emotionally prior to the latest deployment to Afghanistan as well as ensuring I was extremely technically and tactically proficient. I was as well prepared as I could be, but for me it was all academic and theory at that point as my reactions under fire had never been tested.

Well, over there it was tested and tested and I experienced firsthand what before had just been a learned understanding as far as what happens to your body in a deadly encounter and how your training can overcome it if you train as you fight.

I am fond of saying "In a deadly encounter you do not rise to the occasion, you fall to the lowest level of your training".

So to succintly answer the question, if someone has not been in a deadly force encounter it is hard for me to consider them to be speaking from a position of firsthand knowledge and authority when they are talking about what happens in a gun fight.

Question 2:
At face value neither of those would mean anything to me. You could be retired LE, but been a patrol officer in a sleepy town where nothing happens and never had to draw your firearm. Or, you could have been a SWAT team member or assigned to a dangerous area where you are in a fight multiple times per week. Its the details that matter.

As for military, same thing. At face value being retired Military doesnt mean anything to me. You could have sat behind a desk and never deployed your entire career, or you may have deployments but sat in a supply room or TOC on them. Or you could be a ranger/SF who has extensive experience in the fight with his dick in the dirt. Again, its the details that matter.

Being LE or Military does not automatically mean that they have some Jedi-like mastery of firearms that the rest of us can never be able to attain.


I hope that asnwers your two questions. I want to make the point that I am not trying to be a Richard Cranium, I genuinely wanted to know the answer to the initial question just to broaden my understanding of your postings.

First, thanks for your service. Words cannot express my appreciation.

I personally fall into the deployed often but never had to fire a shot in anger camp. Trained for it, it was a possible if not probably aspect of job, but never had to use it. For most of us, that is just how it was during the 90s. Even the special operations guys we deployed with were likely to go their entire careers without firing a shot in anger. Things are definitely different in that regard today.

When I compare the quality of firearms and combat training I got from the military to the quality of training I have gotten on my own as a civilian willing to pay for the privilege it is scary as hell. The military training seriously sucked by comparison. Even scarier is the fact that my unit received ten times the training most units get because our mission was to deploy into harms way. So when guy's use their military experience to prop themselves up as experts I roll my eyes. I've trained side by side with active Seals, SF, Rangers, Marines, etc. Most of the time they aren't that impressive. Yes they can out run me any day of the week (these days) but most hover around my level of shooting...and I would expect them to make me look a complete noob given their job requirements. Meaning I am not trying to say I shoot great, but that I am surprised they shoot as poorly as I do and terrified at how often they shoot worse than I do. There definitely are the guys who are seriously tuned up and are impressive as hell, but they are the exception to the rule and not the norm - even among the special operations guys. It is very troubling.

With the law enforcement guys that I have trained my experiences have been more on par with your post. The beat cops and detectives are almost always seriously lacking, and the SWAT guys are almost always really tuned up. That is not to say I have not been seriously impressed with some non-SWAT guys. The best shooter I have ever seen was an investigator with the DOJ. For him it was a combination of natural ability and the fact that he LOVES to train on the range so he shoots daily even though it is not required. The absolute worst shooter I have ever seen with a badge worked for the Border Patrol. He made my mother, who has only fired a gun three or four times look like an expert. Not saying he was typical of the Border Patrol or Law Enforcement, just that it surprised me that guys who's job title makes them sound like they would be an expert could be so bad. So you just never know. Job title does not mean what we wish it meant. I've trained with Soccer Mom's and geeky accountants that were about as impressive a shooter as the best special operations shooters I've ever seen. It all goes in to how much time, money and effort they are willing to spend on their training and some natural ability as well.


My best friend since high school is a cop. We spend a lot of time training together. In some areas his skill and training level is way beyond mine. In particular, his situational awareness and retention skills put me to shame. He is very aware of everything going on around him and if you get anywhere near his firearm you can expect some trippy wrist lock that puts your face in the dirt. However, when it comes to the actual shooting he only recently began to exceed my abilities. That means that for years he was out there on the street, in a terrible area, with a lesser skill set that a computer geek. Now bear in mind I consider my own abilities at present barely adequate when tuned up and less than adequate when not. I see a vast amount of room for improvement and if I carried for a living I would definately be putting in the effort to bridge that gap. So that really worried me that he wasn't a vastly superior shooter. I have a feeling that if were not for the friendly competition between us, he would never have reached the skill level he has and a little worried he will start to tapper off now that his level has exceeded mine. Most guys rely on the small amount of training their department or unit gives them. They don't have a gun nut for a best friend that will ride them to train on their own and get as good as they can get.

ZombieTactics
04-14-2011, 12:18 PM
... You can understand in theory, and tick off the list of things that happen to your body in that encounter...but again, until you have experienced it first hand it is academic ... Agreed.

I am fond of saying "In a deadly encounter you do not rise to the occasion, you fall to the lowest level of your training". My version of this is "You do not rise to the occasion, you default to the level of that you have mastered."

So to succintly answer the question, if someone has not been in a deadly force encounter it is hard for me to consider them to be speaking from a position of firsthand knowledge and authority when they are talking about what happens in a gun fight. I have been a victim of violent crime on 4.5 occasions. The ".5" is a case where I am not sure it can be called "violent crime" (more like extreme stupidity), but it is the one instance where I was shot.

I was not carrying a firearm in any of these cases, and my experience is one of the reasons why I am now almost never without one. 1 of them left me with permanent internal injuries, which became life-threatening years later owning to complications, and requiring emergency surgery to save my life. 2 of of the other 3 could be reasonably called "in fear of my life or great bodily injury" situations, the 4th really little more than an altercation with a drunk. I have a pretty good idea how I react, and can verify most of the symptoms reported in books, reports, etc.

Given your experience, I'd be interested in your thoughts regarding the comments made by tacticalcity regarding the observed skill levels of mil/LE types at training courses. I've observed this phenomenon myself, even with "been-there/done-that" types, and it's always made me wonder a bit. Is there anything of value I should take from this observation?

Brown Rock
04-14-2011, 12:22 PM
Once or twice in Afghanistan... ;)

Respect.

NJ1rSywlm7U

Lead Waster
04-15-2011, 9:30 AM
Guy in the video didn't have a chance, but maybe he could have gotten in some dying revenge if he had one chambered, hard to say though, he was probably already in shock by the time he drew his gun. :(

If he had a DA revolver, it might have helped too, as he was frantically pulling the trigger with slide racking mixed in there. If it was a DA revolver he could have just pulled the trigger, even if he missed the return fire might have made the bad guys back off a bit. But I guess a DA revolver is pretty much the same as a chambered autoloader.

Bottom line (for me) is ... don't give people a reason to send hit men after you, and if you do, then for goodness sakes carry a chambered fully loaded pistol or two and wear a dang vest.

As pointed out, this was a hit, so this guys life must have had some dangers in it that he was only half-way prepared for.

tacticalcity
04-15-2011, 11:12 AM
If he had a DA revolver, it might have helped too, as he was frantically pulling the trigger with slide racking mixed in there. If it was a DA revolver he could have just pulled the trigger, even if he missed the return fire might have made the bad guys back off a bit. But I guess a DA revolver is pretty much the same as a chambered autoloader.

Bottom line (for me) is ... don't give people a reason to send hit men after you, and if you do, then for goodness sakes carry a chambered fully loaded pistol or two and wear a dang vest.

As pointed out, this was a hit, so this guys life must have had some dangers in it that he was only half-way prepared for.

You don't have to be a bad person to end up in a bad situation. Sure, knowing the guy probably had it coming makes it easier to stomach the video, but that doesn't change the fact that there are a ton of lessons to learn from what happened to him...including don't tick off people who will hire hitmen to kill you.

BrocLuno
04-15-2011, 5:04 PM
There is a reason I carry a Python.

ZombieTactics
04-15-2011, 6:19 PM
You don't have to be a bad person to end up in a bad situation. Sure, knowing the guy probably had it coming makes it easier to stomach the video, but that doesn't change the fact that there are a ton of lessons to learn from what happened to him...including don't tick off people who will hire hitmen to kill you.

One thing I took from this video is that these guys (victims) were about as "Condition White" as possible ... I mean almost to the point of being bleached to "Condition Transparent" or something.

I also can't imagine working in a gold/silver store, jewelry store, etc. of that kind without a pistol carried C1, a backup carried C1, my employees carrying C1 and a shotgun or 2 in C1 behind the counter.

Medtech
04-16-2011, 11:12 AM
even if he had a round chambered the guy would still be dead

he was popped well before he even reached for his weapon

the element of surprise is what got him

+1

Hi, I'm new here. Just picked up an FN 5.7 from another Calgunner.

My 2 cents is that every situation is different.

Let's review the video in this case:

The victim was sitting in a relaxed position that indicates he had no clue what was about to happen. Off camera the perp pulls a weapon and we can see the victim grab for it and miss. He is shot in the abdomen or hip at that exact moment.

I think there is little argument that at this point the victim is in deep trouble and possibly already hit with the fatal shot. (It's also unclear if the perps follow up shots hit him or not)

The upside is that even though he is shot he still had 30 seconds of life left in him to fight back.

IMO it looks as if he had a fair amount of training because despite being shot and ambushed he still is trying to rack and fire the weapon, repeatedly.

(I'm not sure where we got the info that the weapon was unloaded, and not just a misfire.)

Bottom line is, when the sh*t hit the fan, this guy did everything right (in the heat of the moment), he was just unlucky.

To me the take home message is about awareness. He unfortunately did not pick up on the fact that these guys were squirrelly(sp?). Sad for him, and my prayers go out to his family.

Oh, and no offense to the experienced shooters here, but the 21 foot rule is very real. I would encourage you to get an airsoft pistol and a rubber knife and try it. Start from a realistic position (ie a notepad in your hand) and let the attacker initiate. The real question is not whether you can get 1 or 2 shots off, but do you think you will stop the attacker before they can inflict damage on you. After you do the drill a few times it may increase your awareness of anyone that gets too close.

Flame suit on...:D

knucklehead0202
04-16-2011, 2:56 PM
revolvers are simple

+10, revolvers are point-and-click, and look prettier too. if you screw up or shoot yourself with a revolver, you have NO business being near firearms.

k1dude
04-16-2011, 11:13 PM
+1

Hi, I'm new here. Just picked up an FN 5.7 from another Calgunner.

My 2 cents is that every situation is different.

Let's review the video in this case:

The victim was sitting in a relaxed position that indicates he had no clue what was about to happen. Off camera the perp pulls a weapon and we can see the victim grab for it and miss. He is shot in the abdomen or hip at that exact moment.

I think there is little argument that at this point the victim is in deep trouble and possibly already hit with the fatal shot. (It's also unclear if the perps follow up shots hit him or not)

The upside is that even though he is shot he still had 30 seconds of life left in him to fight back.

IMO it looks as if he had a fair amount of training because despite being shot and ambushed he still is trying to rack and fire the weapon, repeatedly.

(I'm not sure where we got the info that the weapon was unloaded, and not just a misfire.)

Bottom line is, when the sh*t hit the fan, this guy did everything right (in the heat of the moment), he was just unlucky.

To me the take home message is about awareness. He unfortunately did not pick up on the fact that these guys were squirrelly(sp?). Sad for him, and my prayers go out to his family.

Oh, and no offense to the experienced shooters here, but the 21 foot rule is very real. I would encourage you to get an airsoft pistol and a rubber knife and try it. Start from a realistic position (ie a notepad in your hand) and let the attacker initiate. The real question is not whether you can get 1 or 2 shots off, but do you think you will stop the attacker before they can inflict damage on you. After you do the drill a few times it may increase your awareness of anyone that gets too close.

Flame suit on...:D

I don't think he was doing everything correctly. I've only seen the video once, but I don't believe he ever tapped before racking. He was just continually racking and no rounds were ejecting. That makes me think the mag wasn't seated. If he had proper training, he would've tapped before racking and a round would've been chambered correctly.

ZombieTactics
04-17-2011, 8:37 AM
I don't think he was doing everything correctly. I've only seen the video once, but I don't believe he ever tapped before racking. He was just continually racking and no rounds were ejecting. That makes me think the mag wasn't seated. If he had proper training, he would've tapped before racking and a round would've been chambered correctly. There were quite a few indications that the victim really had very little idea what he was doing with a handgun.

tacticalcity
04-18-2011, 3:46 PM
One thing I took from this video is that these guys (victims) were about as "Condition White" as possible ... I mean almost to the point of being bleached to "Condition Transparent" or something.

I also can't imagine working in a gold/silver store, jewelry store, etc. of that kind without a pistol carried C1, a backup carried C1, my employees carrying C1 and a shotgun or 2 in C1 behind the counter.

Ah, the good old color code of awareness lecture. If ever anybody needed a yellow sticky note to wake him up (guys who have not sat through that lecture are going to have no idea what we are talking about). ;)

GM4spd
04-19-2011, 5:40 AM
An unloaded gun is as useful as a football bat

Try telling that to the UOC crowd:rolleyes: Pete

DesertGunner
04-19-2011, 6:50 AM
Try telling that to the UOC crowd:rolleyes: Pete

People who walk around advertising how defenseless they are are not likely to listen to reason.

tacticalcity
04-19-2011, 9:25 AM
Try telling that to the UOC crowd:rolleyes: Pete

UOC is NOT about being armed for self defense (whether the individual knows it or not). The UOC crowd is more about getting the general public used to seeing guns without completely flipping out and thinking the world is coming to end. In other words, promoting awareness to the completely oblivious. The more people get used to seeing guns in everyday, non-violent context, the less they will buy into the anti-gun rhetoric. Gun owners will stop being some nut job they read about in a magazine, but their very kind and respectful neighbors and coworkers.

At least, that is the part about what the UOCers are doing that I agree with. And if they left it at that, and did not jump through all kind of hoops to antagonize law enforcement I would remain cool with them. But more often than not they cross a line that is unacceptable to me.

Their core objective is great. Their method of execution is entirely unacceptable. Most have a MASSIVE chip on their shoulder that shines through on their videos. So more often than not their videos show them being complete jerks to some poor beat cop who sucks it up and remains professional.

What upsets me the most is that they do not blur out the officer's faces on the videos. Posting pictures or videos of law enforcement without their permission hurts their careers and potentially risks their lives. A year from now, or two years from now they could get promoted into some kind of under cover work or move onto another agency where having their face in an on line video puts them at risk. If that officer is unaware that is face is on YouTube because it was a hidden camera and he was not told, then he could be putting himself at risk without knowing it by accepting such a position. So on that front, the entire UOC movement completely looses my respect and needs a ***** slap. Talk about an epic fail.

I would love to be able to support those guys. I certainly share their objective. But those videos turned me off something fierce. Everything about them rubs me the wrong way.

tacticalcity
04-19-2011, 9:52 AM
+10, revolvers are point-and-click, and look prettier too. if you screw up or shoot yourself with a revolver, you have NO business being near firearms.

I understand why people believe revolvers are safer and more reliable than semi-autos. But it bugs me that they just say it, and don't explain why they feel this way. It makes me wonder if they even know themselves. I do not mean that as an insult to you personally. I just think it should be spelled out.

A revolver is considered "safer" by many because it has a really hard trigger pull. It is double action only and does not have a thumb safety. Making it no different on the "safety" front that any other DAO handgun with a really hard trigger pull. Those who insist on a thumb safety in semi-auto really shouldn't feel any safer with a revolver. They are contradicting themselves big time. Trigger discipline is still required even with the really hard trigger pull usually associated with a revolver. If you can maintain trigger discipline on one, there is no reason you should not be able maintain trigger discipline on the other.

A revolver is considered "more reliable" because the issues that can be caused by a magazine failing to seat are eliminated from the equation. However, downloading your magazines instead of topping them off and proper training and practice virtually eliminate this from happening. The cost of that added reliabality is that your firepower (the amount of rounds you bring to the fight) and your rate of fire are dramatically decreased. That is a pretty high cost vs. reward ratio. It would be one thing if semi-autos had a massive failure rate that couldn't be overcome with proper training. But that simply is not the case.

A revolver is often considered "fool-proof" because it is supposed to be so easy to use even the untrained can do it effectively. I strongly disagree with this assumption. The hard trigger pull means that getting an effective combination of speed and accuracy is going to take an enourmous amount of practice, as are reloads. Reloading a revolver in the middle of a firefight is a challenging prospect. So a boat load of training is going to need to be invested there as well. If your goal is to put holes in paper and learn about shooting then a revolver is a great place to start. If you need a backup weapon that can be easily concealed, then a revolver is a great choice. However I personally would not feel comfortable with a revolver being my primary side-arm. Too much is sacraficed in the way of speed, accuracy and firepower (amount of rounds one can effectively bring to the fight) all in the name of being "fool-proof".

Just my $0.02.

negolien
04-19-2011, 12:06 PM
The two points are simple

1. Carry cocked and locked 24/7 no matter what.

This has some merit but also some drawbacks especially from those on here that "leave it unlock in the dresser"

2. Conditional carry IE situation warrants carry. IE Loaded mag none in chamber... Has it's uses also. I own a kimber and a Glock handgun wise and have the Glock locked up and the kimber tucked into the carry handle of my mattress in a holster mag full chamber empty. Makes me comfortable that I have it close at hand but not having to worry about ND.

Both these conditions are personal and not a one size fits all IMHO. The problem is some people on here think their carry option is "the only option"...Sounds a bit like communism to me ROFL...You take a risk carrying either way it's up to the individual to decide what risk he wants to take on. i will NEVER tell someone else how they should carry only offer my opinion. It's up to each individual to decide what's best for them and that's the way it should be.

tacticalcity
05-03-2011, 1:22 PM
The two points are simple

1. Carry cocked and locked 24/7 no matter what.

This has some merit but also some drawbacks especially from those on here that "leave it unlock in the dresser"

2. Conditional carry IE situation warrants carry. IE Loaded mag none in chamber... Has it's uses also. I own a kimber and a Glock handgun wise and have the Glock locked up and the kimber tucked into the carry handle of my mattress in a holster mag full chamber empty. Makes me comfortable that I have it close at hand but not having to worry about ND.

Both these conditions are personal and not a one size fits all IMHO. The problem is some people on here think their carry option is "the only option"...Sounds a bit like communism to me ROFL...You take a risk carrying either way it's up to the individual to decide what risk he wants to take on. i will NEVER tell someone else how they should carry only offer my opinion. It's up to each individual to decide what's best for them and that's the way it should be.

Definitions are important. If it is not on your body you are not "carrying" it you are "storing" it. The argument is not over how you store your weapon but how you carry it. How you store it is an entirely different can of worms. They envolve a mile long list of different considerations and requirments, not the least of which is the threat level and act of possession. They should not be debated as if they were the same thing. It muddies up the argument too much.

SoCalXD
05-04-2011, 12:07 PM
... as far as your scenario, only other person I can think of that carries an unloaded gun with a bullet in his front pocket is Barney Fife.

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

Z_SprizL
05-04-2011, 1:11 PM
While you're cockin' I'm poppin'...there are plenty of situations that people barely have enough time to draw their gun let alone rack it, but I'm sure with practice you could make that action part of the motion of drawing the pistol. In reality though you would have to be walking around pretty paranoid to be ready to do that at all times. It's easier for most to keep one chambered and practice regular firearm safety, then if the situation ever arrives their reaction can be as simple as possible.

tacticalcity
05-04-2011, 2:00 PM
:rofl::rofl::rofl:

Gotta love a Barney Fife referrance. A lot of the younger members probably have no clue who the character Barney Fife was. I'm too young to have seen the first run of the show, but the reruns were the only thing on when I got home after school worth watching for a number of years. I suppose there is still TVLand. But I am not sure how many kids grow up watching that channel. I think it is mostly for the old folks.

ZLsg0EvZozI

mif_slim
05-04-2011, 5:54 PM
I know that the subject has gone crazy but I was cerious on how much difference it would take for one to put one in the pipe and shoot. I know this doesnt work at all times, but sometimes carrying w/o one in the pipe is nessasary (ex: having my kids cling on me and such)

I made a little video to see if I can actually react to such threat IF I know Im facing a threat...I know things would be different if they attacked from the side/back/above/below etc etc..but just something to think about i guess..
Sorry for the crappy presentation.. LOL!
B-w9vKyB74c

Bobby Hated
05-04-2011, 6:43 PM
im so conditioned to rack i might rack a round out if i have one in the chamber. ha ha.

i feel fine carrying a glock with one in the hole, less so with a 1911. im paranoid about accidentally flipping the thumb safety somehow.

MoBait
05-04-2011, 9:53 PM
im so conditioned to rack i might rack a round out if i have one in the chamber. ha ha.

i feel fine carrying a glock with one in the hole, less so with a 1911. im paranoid about accidentally flipping the thumb safety somehow.

I was worried about that as well, until I realized that I would have to accidentally flip the thumb safety, then accidentally depress the grip safety and trigger at the same time. I am the opposite of you actually, I feel more comfortable carrying a cond 1 1911 than a loaded glock. Not that I wouldnt carry a loaded glock though.

Z_SprizL
05-04-2011, 11:36 PM
That's why I like my Walther P99AS with the DA/SA option I can have one in the chamber and then just decock it by pressing the decocker on the slide. Almost like carrying a revolver in DA(without a safety of course), if needed I could rack the slide back a 1/2" and will be back in SA. It's all about the difference in the trigger pull ;)

Onlyincali
05-05-2011, 1:04 PM
that was a great presentation above...

ZombieTactics
05-05-2011, 1:29 PM
I was worried about that as well, until I realized that I would have to accidentally flip the thumb safety, then accidentally depress the grip safety and trigger at the same time. I am the opposite of you actually, I feel more comfortable carrying a cond 1 1911 than a loaded glock. Not that I wouldnt carry a loaded glock though.
There is a lot to be said in favor of a 1911-style manual-of-arms.

tacticalcity
05-05-2011, 1:54 PM
I know that the subject has gone crazy but I was cerious on how much difference it would take for one to put one in the pipe and shoot. I know this doesnt work at all times, but sometimes carrying w/o one in the pipe is nessasary (ex: having my kids cling on me and such)

I made a little video to see if I can actually react to such threat IF I know Im facing a threat...I know things would be different if they attacked from the side/back/above/below etc etc..but just something to think about i guess..
Sorry for the crappy presentation.. LOL!
B-w9vKyB74c

As fast as that is it seems like an eternity to me. 3-5 rounds coming your way in that amount of time easy.

I do get the kids thing, however. When little kids enter the equation, and you are their care giver, all the rules change. I personally would feel very nervous carrying around little kids. My best friend who is a police officer does so when out and and about, but immediately locks the gun in the safe once he gets home. He carries with one in the chamber.

Great video by the way. Nice work.

tacticalcity
05-05-2011, 2:05 PM
That's why I like my Walther P99AS with the DA/SA option I can have one in the chamber and then just decock it by pressing the decocker on the slide. Almost like carrying a revolver in DA(without a safety of course), if needed I could rack the slide back a 1/2" and will be back in SA. It's all about the difference in the trigger pull ;)

I said this before and I will say it again. Comfort level and peace of mind is all about training. Before taking a professional course with a Glock, I was very nervous about the fact that it did not have a thumb safety. I was also very nervous carrying with a round in the chamber. After 4 days, 8 hours a day. I have ZERO apprehension about it and complete confidence in my abilities with the Glock. While I am new to the 1911, I do not feel the least bit nervous about it either. Because I know where my gun handling abilities are at. My brain and my finger are my safety. Sounds cocky I know, but it is true. I have that much confidence, and with good reason. I've proven to myself that I am safe doing so.

I am not saying training eliminates every single possible concern in the world. Being a primary care giver to little kids for example can muddy up the issue in a way training does fix 100%. However, if you have not taken a course, I strongly recommend doing so. Not only are they extremely fun, your comfort level and skill level will dramatically increase. By major leaps and bounds you did not think possible.

Took me a while to find what I was looking for...this really long clip is the best example of what I was trying to demonstrate. Sorry, I do not have a video camera or range to make my own...or I would.

Check out this video from timemark 3:27. There is a quick example of how quickly this particular instructor (and most trained shooters) can shoot from the holster without really trying. He is mid conversation and does an amazing job. If he wanted to he could do it much faster. Compare the time it takes to rack the slide in the first video, with how quickly a trained shooter can draw and get 3-5 good hits and there is no question that carrying without a round in the chamber puts you way behind the power curve.
c06mH6x2Ntc

mif_slim
05-05-2011, 2:14 PM
As fast as that is it seems like an eternity to me. 3-5 rounds coming your way in that amount of time easy.

I do get the kids thing, however. When little kids enter the equation, and you are their care giver, all the rules change. I personally would feel very nervous carrying around little kids. My best friend who is a police officer does so when out and and about, but immediately locks the gun in the safe once he gets home. He carries with one in the chamber.

Great video by the way. Nice work.

Thanks, after I view the video.. I was thinking... "I would of been dead" moving back would be best if I was in a hall way where I cant move left or right but I should of been moving lateral or diagnal in such a open space like that..(Back to the training ground! lol)

But I do get you that in the amount of time I spent trying to put a round in the chamber someone could of gotten a first shot off...lets just hope that most bad guys are not highly train arms men because that would be bad. However, we have to train to meet the best(evil rather) to be able to servive the norm.

tacticalcity
05-05-2011, 2:24 PM
Thanks, after I view the video.. I was thinking... "I would of been dead" moving back would be best if I was in a hall way where I cant move left or right but I should of been moving lateral or diagnal in such a open space like that..(Back to the training ground! lol)

But I do get you that in the amount of time I spent trying to put a round in the chamber someone could of gotten a first shot off...lets just hope that most bad guys are not highly train arms men because that would be bad. However, we have to train to meet the best(evil rather) to be able to servive the norm.

Well, when kids are involved...you have to take all kinds of extra precautions. I get that.

As for moving, at least you're moving. Backwards helps, especially if it is the only direction there is, because distance is your friend. A trained shooter will almost always have an advantage with distance. So increasing it is probably going to serve you better than standing still.

Because of range rules here in California most of us are training ourselves to stand still no matter how much room we have or what cover is available to us. At best we train to step just a step or two to either side. Then in real life, that is what we end up doing. When in reality we should be shooting and moving to cover (if it exists) or just moving so we are harder to hit. So because of safety rules, we build in some really bad habbits during our training.

That is one of things I like about the Level II and above courses from StoneCobraTactical.com right here in Sacramento. They setup drills where you are shooting, moving and comunication all the way down a massive range with all kinds of different targets setup and all kinds of different types of cover designed to get you to use the various techniques they teach you. They go the extra mile to make the learning experience both fun and as beneficial as possible.

I'd probably still not move then afterwards think, darn it why didn't you move, assuming I was still around. I spend too much time on normal ranges and not enough taking courses where you get practice in a dynamic enviorment.

mif_slim
05-05-2011, 2:29 PM
Well, when kids are involved...you have to take all kinds of extra precautions. I get that.

Yup...

I love that video by the way! wonder if they have any of those around Sac area? I know theres one in Stockton area..

MoBait
05-05-2011, 2:31 PM
...lets just hope that most bad guys are not highly train arms men because that would be bad. However, we have to train to meet the best(evil rather) to be able to servive the norm.

I was actually thinking if I had a CCW and was in a bank and Neil McCauley (DeNiro from Heat) and his crew busted in I would definitely not try to draw my weapon. But then again, I would be proud if Neil & Co. robbed my bank with me there.

mif_slim
05-05-2011, 2:33 PM
I was actually thinking if I had a CCW and was in a bank and Neil McCauley (DeNiro from Heat) and his crew busted in I would definitely not try to draw my weapon. But then again, I would be proud if Neil & Co. robbed my bank with me there.

lol, well one must always remember that carrying a weapon (gun in this case) doesnt mean you have to draw your weapon. You have to remember that a gun doesnt solve every situation. ;)

inbox485
05-05-2011, 2:38 PM
As fast as that is it seems like an eternity to me. 3-5 rounds coming your way in that amount of time easy.

I do get the kids thing, however. When little kids enter the equation, and you are their care giver, all the rules change. I personally would feel very nervous carrying around little kids. My best friend who is a police officer does so when out and and about, but immediately locks the gun in the safe once he gets home. He carries with one in the chamber.

Great video by the way. Nice work.

To me having the thing chambered is a precaution if you might be dealing with kids. Obviously fidgeting with the thing while your kid is warped around your leg would be a no-no, but come time to really use the thing you stand a fair chance of not having 2 hands free - one reason for which is you may be holding onto your kid with one hand. Just something to add to the consideration...

tacticalcity
05-05-2011, 2:44 PM
Yup...

I love that video by the way! wonder if they have any of those around Sac area? I know theres one in Stockton area..

Stone Cobra Tactical has courses right here at the Sac Valley Shooting Center. The instructors are off-duty LE, so they are 1 and 2 day weekend courses and spread out. One month you take level 1. The next level 2. The next level 3. Usually only one of levels is available that month, but they usually offer a differnt level in a different weapon system. So if you missed the level you needed for a particular weapon system you can always take the course for a different weapon system and add another tool to your tool box. If you practice what you learned in between courses the time between classes is a bonus. If not then the compressed 4 day courses offered by the bigger schools might be a wise move. However, those courses are really expensive and require vacation time while Stone Cobra works within most peoples work schedule. And at $100-$200 a course, they are much more affordable than any school I have ever seen. I really enjoyed the training I got from them last year. Took several courses, each one was amazing. Wish there was room in my scheduel/budget now.

www.stonecobratactical.com

mif_slim
05-05-2011, 3:21 PM
Sweet!! I'll have to look into that site!!

Thanks a bunch!

ZombieTactics
05-05-2011, 3:29 PM
... Check out this video from timemark 3:27. There is a quick example of how quickly this particular instructor (and most trained shooters) can shoot from the holster without really trying. He is mid conversation and does an amazing job. If he wanted to he could do it much faster. Compare the time it takes to rack the slide in the first video, with how quickly a trained shooter can draw and get 3-5 good hits and there is no question that carrying without a round in the chamber puts you way behind the power curve.
The problem is that this is not a valid comparison. Comparing what Gabe Suarez can do to what someone else less trained/skilled can do doesn't really mean anything. I imagine Gabe could draw C3 and still outdo most of us.

Since Gabe won't be protecting me or my family, I'll generally rest upon my own abilities as a point of comparison. Reliably, the difference for me is about 220 milliseconds or so. I suspect for someone really skilled it could be less.

That's well within the neuro-kinetic response window, BTW (which is about 400ms-600ms for most people). It's so fast that the vast majority of the population can scarcely start/stop a stopwatch much faster. Bullets aren't magical instant-off switches. Anything my attacker was in the process of doing ... he'll still do either way. There's just not enough time to make a difference. Just a point of discussion ... nothing more, especially since I carry C1 the vast majority of the time.

SoCalXD
05-05-2011, 4:15 PM
that was a great presentation above...

Agreed. Nice shootin' there Tex! Thanks for the video.

Now just add a bad guy coming at you with a knife from arms length for the stress factor and see if you can get 100% reliable chamberings. Then do it with a gun with a shorter barrel and heavy recoil spring... then do it one handed, like you are batting away a knife hand of an attacker. :sweatdrop:

mif_slim
05-05-2011, 4:36 PM
ZT, I was going to pount that out too. Just because I got the first shot off doesn't meant the BG will be going down, it will take seconds if no minutes for the threat to go down. In the mean time you need to be getting away, getting distance, shooting til threat is down etc etc...

mif_slim
05-05-2011, 4:38 PM
Sorry, auto correct slipped away from my iPhone!

SoCalXD
05-05-2011, 7:52 PM
"Most Shocking, Citizens Under Attack" on Tru TV: Hours of armed robbery and felony assault videos which serve very well for CCW scenario analysis. After watching a few episodes, it's obvious that Condition One carry is the only correct answer.

mif_slim
05-05-2011, 8:58 PM
I think it still depends on situation. I watched that how any the thing most of the victims are because they don't have any situational awareness..if your going to CC, you need to be aware at ALL times. Like riding motorcycles, you have to be aware 120% of the time and give yourself plenty of space for reaction... Carrying conceal needs 200% awareness.