Carry without a round in a chamber = FAIL

[wu_dot_com]

First of all, again with the machoness thing...where is this coming from, being prepared is trying to be macho? LOL and if CARRYING a firearm not ready to be fired is illogical, you sir have never had to use a firearm, and I would bet money on that. Talk to anyone who uses a weapon for a living, (who knows what they are talking about, not "internet commandos") and the only way they would ever carry that weapon is in Con1.

i've seen plenty of guys at the range who try to shoot beyond their ability, yet they all talked like they can shoot the wings off flys. that to me is showing off and being macho. it gets worst when there girls are around.many can talk the talk, but not too many can walk the walk.

carry C3 is not illogical, but carrying UOC is; in a practical sense (not political sense). as zombie tactic illustrated, C3 and C1 time difference is small. however, in a known none hostile environment where the occurrence of a rapid violence is not expected or anticipated, carry C1 can be a liability. by that i mean we are all human, and despite our best effort, we can and will be negligent with our weapons. carrying C3 in some situation cuts down the risk of ND occurrences. best example is how many people have ND their Glock while field stripping? not bashing on Glock, but it seems to be a fairly regular occurrences on glock forums. sometime, those ND happen to experience gun owners too.
The bottom line is, stupid ***** happen, and it takes an intelligent person to own up and acknowledge that.

I gave up on weapons anyway, I can ninja kick faster then people can draw and rack. I've got the times to prove it. I also have ninja sense that allows me to see attacks before they can happen so I can hit you with my ninja star if out of range of my ninja kick, but highly unlikely because my max effective range of my ninja kick is about 75yds.

didnt mean to disrespect sensei. with your skills, guns are nothing more than toys that makes loud noise.

[wu_dot_com]

Yes, actually I do. I may not be as proficient with my weak hand, but I'm trying to get better.

i see where you are coming from and you are the few where your training agrees with your assumptions.

i personally evaluate the threat level of my surrounding based on a few factors. time of days, surrounding ares, reputations, suspicious movements, etc. when i am in questionable settings, my mental alert status is high. i avoid getting into questionable area and situations. thus with all my life spent in SoCA, i never felt the need to carry. looking back at those past situations, having a gun would not help resolve the conflicts.

this is not to say that i will never feel the need to carry in the future.

BTW i train for SD because i like guns.

[DannyZRC]

I think a lot of the discussion in this thread, and every other thread where firearm safety and readiness are juxtaposed, is missing the fundamentals of any sort of comparative analysis.

What I'm talking about is Cost/Benefit analysis.

Clearly, the design of firearms, as well as the training and practices implemented for their use, are focused primarily on maximizing these two factors and, to an extent, balancing them against each-other:

1: The Firearm should fire fast and accurate shots at the shooters intended target when desired. (readiness)
2: The Firearm should remain inert and not shoot any shots when shots are not desired. (safety)

There are further sub goals in design and training, usually about various details of operation, or consistency in that operation.

So, what are the costs of going Chambered vs Unchambered? What are the Benefits to Chambered over Unchambered? (C1/C3 really only apply to 1911 pattern guns).

People have different priorities, and different perceptions about what constitutes satisfactory levels of readiness and safety.

Someone choosing to carry chambered believes that they have to be chambered to fulfill the first conditional above, but that being chambered doesn't compromise the second conditional

Someone choosing to carry UNchambered believes the reverse, that being unchambered does not compromise readiness, but that it is required for safety.

Some people are satisfied by different levels of safety (they think a glock is safe, I don't).
Some people are satisfied by different levels of readiness (they think an empty chamber is acceptable, I don't).
Some people are satisfied by a gun that has multiple conditionals in it's operation, like sometimes the safety is applied and therefore needs to be swiped off, or sometimes the gun isn't chambered and therefore sometimes needs to be racked. I don't like sometimes, I want always.
Some people are satisfied by a gun that is intolerant to environmental factors and poor handling, they are satisfied with a firearm that relies on more rigid standards of storage and employment.

Personally, I value consistency of operation, and I also value a high degree of handling tolerance in a firearm. I am willing to accept a (minimized as much as possible) penalty on readiness to achieve these ends.

Being human, I think my way is the correct way until proven otherwise (as does everyone else).

IMO, if you have a firearm that you don't trust in the chambered condition, you need to get rid of it for one that you do trust. If you have a firearm that you feel needs to be put into various conditions to satisfy safety and readiness as you move from environment to environment, you need to get rid of it for one that you can operate consistently across all conditions.

but it's a free country and you can decide to carry a different gun every day of the week, in different condition depending on if you're getting ice-cream or frogurt, if that's what floats your boat.

[ZombieTactics]

How specific do I need to be? Do you dispute that you can't predict the future? Can you indeed predict the future? ...

What's known is that the future is unknowable. Yes, one can speak of odds, of likelihoods, of probabilities, but one can not legitimately speak of certainties (except the certainty of death).

And the fact is that one can not speak with certainty about the future.

The future is indeed unknowable. As such, you do not know if tomorrow is the day someone lifts your gun from your holster and shoots you in the head with it. I don't know that tomorrow isn't the day that I need that extra hundred 300 milliseconds to draw my gun and fire which C1 would give me. Inasmuch as the future is unknowable ... If you acknowledge one possibility, you must acknowledge the other as a matter of simple logic. The conclusion therefore is that ANY position based purely upon "you can't predict the future" is fundamentally flawed and irrational, because just as many "pros" can be imagined as "cons". "You can't predict the future" is therefore a meaningless argument on its face. If you assert that one is more "important" or "worthy of concern" than the other ... than it must be based on something other than simply asserting the unknown.

On the other hand ... odds can be computed to varying degrees of accuracy. As such, likelihoods can be known. Probabilities can be ascertained. When one says that some event has a "One in X chance" of happening ... it means something beyond a self-contradictory appeal to the unknown.

My original question didn't ask for a scenario. ... It was you who sidestepped.

It's called "argument by example" ... no sidestep at all. I base my decisions upon reality, not a meaningless assertion regarding everyone's ability to predict the future. If that's not good enough, please model what a good answer would look like by answering your own questions for those of us with a differing opinion.

... You've mentioned that statistic. You've not identified a source for it or otherwise validated it.

It is from the training manual of one of the many training classes I've taken, which claims to be sourced from FBI Uniform Crime Reports data. My understanding is that this reflects stats for 2009. If you know differently, this would be an excellent "put up or shut up" opportunity for you.

You say your mind tells you that. Why? How? Based on what data? Cite your sources, please.

Through a process of logic applied to that which can reasonably known or shown to be statistically sound. You seem to eschew both, so I understand the confusion.

Which "disadvantage" I can mitigate by training (as you mitigate the disadvantage of C3 carry) ...

If you acknowledge that the disadvantage of C3 can be mitigated through training inasmuch as can be done so for any perceived C1 disadvantages, (or those of odd manual-of-arms) then you have effectively destroyed your own argument. I can do no better myself, so I ask you to simply accede to that which you have willingly admitted.

[JeepFreak]

Although I gave up reading this read around the middle of page 5, I came across this site and thought others here might appreciate the info. Check it out: http://www.gethomeafter.com/video.html
Billy

[k1dude]

A situation happened this past Saturday that seems appropriate to this conversation.

I was shooting in a 3-gun competition and I wasn't properly counting the rounds out of my 1911. I ran my gun dry so I had to change mags and chamber a round. But for some reason when I racked, my hand slipped off the serrations. So I racked it again and kept shooting. But my time suffered accordingly. As many of you know, reloading is the most time consuming act in 3-gun.

I keep seeing these Youtube videos posted where they're using the Israeli technique of carrying C3 and racking the slide upon drawing. The times are impressive I have to admit, but what happens if you don't rack properly or a cartridge fails to load correctly? If I'm carrying C1, it doesn't matter at all when I draw and fire. My gun is already chambered correctly. A slip of my hand on the slide or a FTF malfunction won't happen because I've already taken the precaution of successfully chambering a round prior to holstering. Only a cartridge malfunction could ruin my day. But that doesn't matter because you'd be screwed either way with a cartridge failure using either method.

I'd rather remove all the steps where potential failure could happen. Try a tap/rack/bang when fractions of a second count. Using the Israeli method, you are trusting and praying on everything going exactly right. The more steps, the more opportunity for something to go wrong. Murphy's law. Why tempt Murphy?

[Lone_Gunman]

The thing I don't really understand is why someone would choose to carry unchambered. It seems to me that any concern you may have about carrying chambered could be mitigated with the use of a proper holster. I carry a G26 in a hybrid leather/kydex holster. The trigger is fully covered until the weapon is drawn. If that's not enough how about a blackhawk holster that really secures the gun. I really can't think of a situation where carrying without one in the chamber makes sense.

[fiddletown]

The future is indeed unknowable. As such, you do not know if tomorrow is the day someone lifts your gun from your holster and shoots you in head with it. I don't know that tomorrow isn't the day that I need that extra hundredths of a second to draw my gun and fire which C1 would give me. Inasmuch as the future is unknowable ... If you acknowledge one possibility, you must acknowledge the other as a matter of simple logic. The conclusion therefore is that ANY position based purely upon "you can't predict the future" is fundamentally flawed and irrational,...

What it does is focus on the disagreement.

You are willing to accept the risks of (1) deciding for a given activity C1 or C3 is the most appropriate mode of carry; and (2) that if you chose C3, you won't need your gun under circumstances that would put you at a disadvantage by carrying in C3.

I am willing to accept the risk that someone will take my C1 gun from my holster and turn it on me.

The choice becomes a personal value judgment.

...If you acknowledge that the disadvantage of C3 can be mitigated through training...

The disadvantage you might mitigate would be speed. You still can't very well mitigate the need for two hands.

In that regard, I just asked Massad Ayoob if he had some information on how often when a gun is fired in self defense it is fired one-handed. He replied:

As a rule of thumb, it's about half the time. Haven't checked the NYPD SOP-9 reports lately, but in the past they've reflected that as well.

[ZombieTactics]

What it does is focus on the disagreement.

No, I am sorry to inform you that a meaningless statement (in this context) like "you can't predict the future" focuses nothing, as it is self-cancelling and self-contradictory on its face. This isn't even arguable. If you state the reason for something is unknown, one can similarly retort that the reason to support an alternate position is unknown as well. Neither party has actually made an argument, as "unknown" is by definition unknowable. It is a NULL property.

You are willing to accept the risks of (1) deciding for a given activity C1 or C3 is the most appropriate mode of carry; and (2) that if you chose C3, you won't need your gun under circumstances that would put you at a disadvantage by carrying in C3.

No, and this should not require explanation. I assert (1) roughly as you state it. I choose (2) C3 under circumstances where I have good reason to believe that there is no meaningful disadvantage, and to perhaps mitigate possible/likely C1 issues. To be clear ... these cases are the minority.

... The choice becomes a personal value judgment.

Then why the argument? Why do my personal value judgments bother you at all if it's not some matter of demonstrable superiority or genuine question of correct/incorrect? Why is it not simply a matter of "OK dude ... do as you please"?

[fiddletown]

... I ran my gun dry so I had to change mags and chamber a round. But for some reason when I racked, my hand slipped off the serrations. So I racked it again and kept shooting. But my time suffered accordingly. ...

...If I'm carrying C1, it doesn't matter at all when I draw and fire. My gun is already chambered correctly. A slip of my hand on the slide or a FTF malfunction won't happen because I've already taken the precaution of successfully chambering a round prior to holstering. ...

A failure to chamber when racking a slide, especially under stress, appears to be a well documented occurrence. From this post on another board:

...Based on some experimentation involving around 13,000 rounds of testing, manually chambering a round is a fairly error-prone procedure even under ideal conditions. That is, if you're going to have an otherwise functional gun using good ammunition jam on you it's more likely to jam during the manual chambering process than at any other time....

And from this post on that board:

...The ISHOT1000 matches kept statistics on this. Based on those records it appears that misfeeds/jams are about 60% more likely when loading the first round from a magazine than when a round is autoloaded by the firing process.....

[fiddletown]

... If you state the reason for something is unknown, one can similarly retort that the reason to support an alternate position is unknown as well. Neither party has actually made an argument, as "unknown" is by definition unknowable. It is a NULL property....

Which again brings the question down to one of a value judgement, i. e., which unpredictable risks one prefers to accept.

...Then why the argument? Why do my personal value judgments bother you at all if it's not some matter of demonstrable superiority or genuine question of correct/incorrect? Why is it not simply a matter of "OK dude ... do as you please"?

If you contend that your choice is the more rational, I will challenge that. I accept your choice as your personal choice, but I'm not prepared to accept it as rationally, morally, ethically or tactically superior.

[ZombieTactics]

A failure to chamber when racking a slide, especially under stress, appears to be a well documented occurrence. ...

That it occurs is not at issue.

The first "documented" assertion ... one test ... only states one opinion, based upon an unknown methodology that manually chambering a round is "more likely" to result in problems. How likely? ...

The second "documented" assertion - from ISHOT1000 no less - establishes only a 60% greater likely hood in cases where people are shooting 1000 rounds in a single day ... arguably reaching a point of actual physical failure at some point on the part of the shooter. How does that even marginally serve to show anything regarding the racking of a first round? Do you not even understand that stat in its logical context regarding the question at hand?

If anything this shows that you are willing to play rather fast and loose with any information you find and present it out of context to support that which it does not even address.

How many times will you split a hair before admitting that you've conceded the case?

[ZombieTactics]

Which again brings the question down to one of a value judgement, i. e., which unpredictable risks one prefers to accept.

No but you demonstrate you don't even understand the argument. A NULL value is meaningless , and confers nothing regarding risks unpredictable or otherwise. If your point was to say "it's all a value judgement", then why all the nonsense about the great unknown?

If you contend that your choice is the more rational, I will challenge that.

Good for you ... but with what? My position (that C3 is sometimes sensible) by definition is more rational as it is based upon something other than "the unknowable".

I accept your choice as your personal choice, but I'm not prepared to accept it as rationally, morally, ethically or tactically superior.

I said nothing of morality or ethics ... so I wonder if you are even comprehending what is written. The rationality of my position has been demonstrated, whether or not you chose to acknowledge it. You seem to split ever smaller hairs on "tactical", so it appears to be a shrinking case on that front.

And all I've ever offered to defend is that sometimes C3 makes sense.

[fiddletown]

...How many times will you split a hair before admitting that you've conceded the case?

Don't be silly.

[fiddletown]

...My position (that C3 is sometimes sensible) by definition is more rational as it is based upon something other than "the unknowable"...

Of course it's based on the unknowable. It's based on the expectations (1) that if you need your gun, you'll have the use of both your hands; (2) that if you need your gun, you'll have time to rack the slide and chamber a round; and (3) that if you need your gun you will be able to chamber a round successfully. You may have what you believe to be good and rational reasons to conclude that there is a high probability that these expectations will be met. But you can be wrong and/or the unlikely occurs. In any case, you can't know for certain that your expectations will be met.