[PhotoFeller]

Originally Posted by SouthernBoyVA

So how would that work if a BG managed to get a shot off and it made a solid hit on your support arm or hand before you were able to chamber a round?

Please indulge one question about your example in the above post.

Does this happen often, in your judgement, or have you known of any actual case(s) where this has happened?

I ask because decisions about CC for most of us, since we are civilians, should be practical; by that I mean they should be made on the basis of likely scenarios, not abstract possibilities. I know some self defense instructors promote skill development beyond the limits of our likely experiences; such instruction would be better suited for LEOs and military troops who are confronted with different situations than we are. Your example seems to be more appropriate for a professional combatant who works in an environment where they are often the target for an intentional kill shot.

Thanks.

[G-nineteen]

Finger off the trigger until you are ready to fire. Skilled shooters have never had an ND/AD, right? If you don't carry with a hot chamber, you're a chickens**t wuss, right?

If you are not in LE but often find yourself in situations in which murderous BGs are only 21 feet away and intent on breaking your slide-racking hand, are you exercising Situational Awareness?

My #1 self-preservation tool is Situational Awareness. If you have to point a gun at a BG outside your home, have you not made a long series of questionable decisions regarding your surroundings? I too, lead a staid, boring lifestyle.

/flame on

[Arc Angel]

Have I not done a wonderful job of staying out of this one!

[rockapede]

Originally Posted by G-nineteen

Finger off the trigger until you are ready to fire. Skilled shooters have never had an ND/AD, right? If you don't carry with a hot chamber, you're a chickens**t wuss, right?

If you are not in LE but often find yourself in situations in which murderous BGs are only 21 feet away and intent on breaking your slide-racking hand, are you exercising Situational Awareness?

My #1 self-preservation tool is Situational Awareness. If you have to point a gun at a BG outside your home, have you not made a long series of utterly stupid and potentially fatal decisions? I too, lead a staid, boring lifestyle.

/flame on

You mostly had me until your last paragraph. Situational awareness is great, except it's not foolproof. You can do everything right and still end up in a gunfight. You can do everything right in a gunfight and still get killed.

Imagine you're in a classroom/store/or other building. Some lunatic chains the doors shut in your building and starts killing everyone in sight. How, exactly, does your situational awareness help you here? If you're carrying, you're probably now in a situation where you're going to be forced to engage. It's not because you did anything "utterly stupid and potentially fatal", either. Honestly (and I'm really not trying to flame you), why even carry a gun if you really believe what you wrote?

[clarson_75]

If safety is the issue, why not try this. Carry the gun for say 6 months with a snap cap in the chamber.(if anything happens you had planned on racking the slide anyway) The snap cap will let you know if you do something wrong. When you finally become comfortable that your safety habits fit into your daily routine, then swap in a live round.

[G-nineteen]

Dang it, my emotional restraint failed. I've edited my post above to remove the offensive language. My bad.

Several times, it has been opined that without one in the chamber, you are carrying a hammer. Can we disagree like men? I realize this is the new-fangled Interwebz.

I hope I haven't derailed PhotoFeller's questions from post #176. I'd love to see the answers.

[NolePhin]

Just found this on YouTube, and I am actually surprised this guy recommended not having a round in the chamber with glocks. He seems like he knows what he's talking about but I'm not sure I agree with him.

Gun Gripes Episode 6: "Safety Issues" - YouTube

Gun Gripes Episode 6: "Safety Issues" - YouTube

[G-nineteen]

Risk assessment:

1. probability of ND/AD

VS.

2. probability of a non-LE facing a lethal situation, AND not having time to rack, OR having one hand/arm disabled at the start of the engagement.

However you carry, train to become proficient and safe. ND/AD make us all look bad. This has been a public service message from...ME.

[PhotoFeller]

Originally Posted by clarson_75

If safety is the issue, why not try this. Carry the gun for say 6 months with a snap cap in the chamber.(if anything happens you had planned on racking the slide anyway) The snap cap will let you know if you do something wrong. When you finally become comfortable that your safety habits fit into your daily routine, then swap in a live round.

What you suggest is a good start for someone new to CC. As proficiency progresses, the move to C1 can be made.

Often a point of debate here is that the probability of a life-threatening attack is near zero', and the common retort by C1 proponents is that "a low probability is meaningless when someone is actually attacked".

When the C1 proponent's logic is used to discuss NDs, the logic is rejected. To a statement that the probability of a ND is low, but when one occurs, someone could be killed or seriously injured, the retort is "all you have to do is keep your finger off of the trigger until you're ready to shoot; if you do that, an ND just can't happen."

The notion that NDs represent 0 probability when the mind-controlled trigger finger is properly conditioned is, in my opinion, malarkey. We are much less perfect in our gun handling techniques than many are willing to admit. Perfection just isn't possible. If someone has a different way of looking at this, I would be anxious to hear your thoughts.

Thanks.

[GlockFanWA]

Originally Posted by kaech

Yep the instructor is a glock hater

I run into this from time to time. I don't if someone doens't like Glock handguns, there are handguns I don't like too. Just be smart about why you don't like them or admit your bias.

[GreenDrake]

If one is not familiar or comfortable with their chosen weapon for concealed carry, it is my personal opinion that that person should not carry. Firearms are engineered to be carried chambered and ready. You are not quick draw Israeli-carry man, give yourself a fighting chance.

[G-nineteen]

Originally Posted by PhotoFeller

What you suggest is a good start for someone new to CC. As proficiency progresses, the move to C1 can be made.

Often a point of debate here is that the probability of a life-threatening attack is near zero', and the common retort by C1 proponents is that "a low probability is meaningless when someone is actually attacked".

When the C1 proponent's logic is used to discuss NDs, the logic is rejected. To a statement that the probability of a ND is low, but when one occurs, someone could be killed or seriously injured, the retort is "all you have to do is keep your finger off of the trigger until you're ready to shoot; if you do that, an ND just can't happen."

The notion that NDs represent a 0 probability when the mind-controlled trigger finger is properly conditioned is, in my opinion, malarkey. We are much less perfect in our gun handling techniques than many are willing to admit. Perfection just isn't possible. If someone has a different way of looking at this, I would be anxious to hear your thoughts.

Thanks.

Injecting reason, logic, and the laws of probability into an internet forum while removing emotion and not questioning anyone's intellect or manhood. Why...that's a dirty trick

[PhotoFeller]

Originally Posted by GreenDrake

If one is not familiar or comfortable with their chosen weapon for concealed carry, it is my personal opinion that that person should not carry. Firearms are engineered to be carried chambered and ready. You are not quick draw Israeli-carry man, give yourself a fighting chance.

I've been thinking about your post, and I come away with two conclusions.

To suggest that I shouldn't be armed at all if I won't carry C1 is way off the mark considering that my judgement is based on the level of competency I feel is needed to carry C1, and your's is based on a generalized notion that C1 is the only acceptable self defense mode.

With respect to guns being "...engineered to be carried chambered and ready", I recall that my Toyota is "engineered" to run well over 100 mph, but that speed exceeds my driving skill level and the legal speed limit. Should I drive at speeds that the machine is capable of or stay within the limits of my driving skill?

[zbomb]

Originally Posted by PhotoFeller

With respect to guns being "...engineered to be carried chambered and ready", I recall that my Toyota is "engineered" to run well over 100 mph, but that speed exceeds my driving skill level and the legal speed limit. Should I drive at speeds that the machine is capable of or stay within the limits of my driving skill?

If your life depends on it....ya.

[VinnieG]

Originally Posted by PhotoFeller

I've been thinking about your post, and I come away with two conclusions.

To suggest that I shouldn't be armed at all if I won't carry C1 is way off the mark considering that my judgement is based on the level of competency I feel is needed to carry C1, and your's is based on a generalized notion that C1 is the only acceptable self defense mode.

With respect to guns being "...engineered to be carried chambered and ready", I recall that my Toyota is "engineered" to run well over 100 mph, but that speed exceeds my driving skill level and the legal speed limit. Should I drive at speeds that the machine is capable of or stay within the limits of my driving skill?

I think your Toyota analogy is off the mark bro. Your truck is capable to run 100mph but not designed for it. It would never last at that speed and rpm for long, compared to how long those trucks will run.
A glock on the other hand was designed for c1. If it was not the need for internal safetys would not be there.
I'm not sayin that you should not carry because you carry c3. Just my observation bro.
I do believe that carrying in c3 is a handy cap for anyone in a self defense situation. But the great thing is we each get to make our own choice on how we want to carry. I always carry c1 and sure as heck dont want or expect to take s-it for it. And I would not give it to you or anyone else that carrys c3.

[happyguy]

Originally Posted by VinnieG

trucks will run.
A glock on the other hand was designed for c1.

Citation please.

Glocks were designed for the Austrian army. What condition do they carry in?

Regards,
Comrade Happyguy

[VinnieG]

Originally Posted by happyguy

Citation please.

Glocks were designed for the Austrian army. What condition do they carry in?

Regards,
Comrade Happyguy

The condition that they carry in was not listed in the original specs for the pistol. It was listed that the pistol could not fire from a shock test, I believe it was a 2 meter drop on a hard surface. So I guess you and I are both speculating on how the pistol was designed to be carried
I keep hearing people bring up how Israel carrys and now how Austria carrys. That has nothing to do with how a civilian or le carrys in this country. A soldier, I don't care what country, does not walk around in a combat zone with a c3 pistol in a holster as his primary weapon.
In this country (not a war zone) there is no known safe zone. You never know when or where a self defense situation will happen. It's two totally different things

[unit1069]

Originally Posted by NolePhin

Just found this on YouTube, and I am actually surprised this guy recommended not having a round in the chamber with glocks. He seems like he knows what he's talking about but I'm not sure I agree with him.

Gun Gripes Episode 6: "Safety Issues" - YouTube

At the outset the demonstrator shows just how quickly a defender can rack the slide.

He also has good familiarity with a number of different weapon designs, and the last sentence he spoke tells us his next video will cover, " ... all the negligent discharges I've had in my life". That's another anecdotal bit telling me that experience with firearms doesn't inoculate a person from potential disaster.

[GreenDrake]

I merely stated my personal opinion, and prefaced it as such. No intent to offend those of you who do not carry in that capacity. As for me, I don't even want a thumb or grip safety anymore, just booger hook on the bang switch and one in the pipe. No bravado, just want as few facets of motion to ensure what happens if I have to use it.

[happyguy]

Originally Posted by VinnieG

The condition that they carry in was not listed in the original specs for the pistol. It was listed that the pistol could not fire from a shock test, I believe it was a 2 meter drop on a hard surface. So I guess you and I are both speculating on how the pistol was designed to be carried
I keep hearing people bring up how Israel carrys and now how Austria carrys. That has nothing to do with how a civilian or le carrys in this country. A soldier, I don't care what country, does not walk around in a combat zone with a c3 pistol in a holster as his primary weapon.
In this country (not a war zone) there is no known safe zone. You never know when or where a self defense situation will happen. It's two totally different things

Glock says no to condition one in the only official reference I can find, the Glock Owners Manual. So to say that Glocks were designed for condition one carry ignores the only official guidance on record.

If someone wants to carry in condition one that's fine, but the statement, "Glocks were designed for condition one carry" is simply an opinion usless someone cares to share something from Glock I haven't seen.

Regards,
Comrade Happyguy

[tnedator]

Originally Posted by NolePhin

Just found this on YouTube, and I am actually surprised this guy recommended not having a round in the chamber with glocks. He seems like he knows what he's talking about but I'm not sure I agree with him.

Gun Gripes Episode 6: "Safety Issues" - YouTube

Since I'm sure a lot of people won't take the time to watch the video. To clarify, he said he didn't carry one in the chamber of his G19, because he uses a clip carry system of some kind, meaning the gun is hung from a clip IWB with nothing covering the chamber.

He then did demonstrate how quickly you can rack it and chamber a round. As has been discussed ad nausea, it clearly is very fast to chamber a round, when you've trained thousands or tens of thousands of times to make that second nature, and more importantly, if you are lucky enough to have one of those encounters where you can use both hands drawing the encounter.

[VinnieG]

Originally Posted by happyguy

Glock says no to condition one in the only official reference I can find, the Glock Owners Manual. So to say that Glocks were designed for condition one carry ignores the only official guidance on record.

If someone wants to carry in condition one that's fine, but the statement, "Glocks were designed for condition one carry" is simply an opinion usless someone cares to share something from Glock I haven't seen.

Regards,
Comrade Happyguy

The manual says no to condition 1 for civilian use. I interpret this as c1 is ok, but a higher level of training is needed.
This is just my opinion and interpretation. I believe if they did not intend for the glock to be carried c1, the manual would have not specified "for civilian use".

[PhotoFeller]

Originally Posted by VinnieG

The manual says no to condition 1 for civilian use. I interpret this as c1 is ok, but a higher level of training is needed.
This is just my opinion and interpretation. I believe if they did not intend for the glock to be carried c1, the manual would have not specified "for civilian use".

The company may be assuming that military and police buyers receive adequate training to carry the pistol without a manual safety. Thus, the warning against C1 applies only to civilians.

My understanding is that Glock was sued by agencies and individuals in the beginning because of numerous ND incidents. That likely prompted the company to warn against chambered carry when civilians are acquiring the guns.

It is interesting that the manual doesn't say chambered carry is ok when proceeded by proper training. I wonder if the manuals provided with LEO purchases also contain the warning against C1.

Glock's statement in the manual clearly underscores the inherent danger of carrying its pistols with a round chambered. IT ALSO MEANS THAT A ND RESULTING IN DEATH, INJURY OR PROPERTY DAMAGE WILL BE DIFFICULT TO DEFEND BECAUSE THE FIREARM WAS USED IN A MANNER THE MANUFACTURER CLEARLY WARNS AGAINST. This is a very significant fact that anyone carrying in C1 should think seriously about.

Thanks for the info, Vinnie.

[VinnieG]

Originally Posted by PhotoFeller

The company must be assuming that military and police buyers receive adequate training to carry the pistol without a manual safety. Thus, the warning against C1 applies only to civilians.

My understanding is that Glock was sued by agencies and individuals in the beginning because of numerous ND incidents. That likely prompted the company to warn against chambered carry when civilians are acquiring the guns. Product liability cases can be very expensive, especially for products like firearms.

It is interesting that the manual doesn't say chambered carry is ok when proceeded by proper training. I wonder if the manuals provided with LEO purchases also contain the warning against C1.

Thanks for the info, Vinnie.

Let me do some lookin bro. I should still have the manual from my issued glock that I bought from my department when we switched to m&p

[Smithers]

Originally Posted by Arc Angel

Have I not done a wonderful job of staying out of this one!

I find your posts very interesting.

Thanks for stopping the flapping wings.

Did I say thanks for stopping the flapping wings?