Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.
Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Carry Issues' started by ArlenGunClub, Jan 24, 2013.
Thanks, Arc. I'm just about done solving the Unified Field Theory.
And these ND/AD incidents happen even with experienced shooters, frequently in police precincts where officers have been thoroughly trained in handling their duty weapons.
Good one - Excellent
Please note the context in which he makes this statement. In his opening statements, he talked about how the Glock was an exceptionally safe firearm and as long as you kept your finger off of the trigger, it was not going to fire. He then went into describing how he was currently carrying his Glock... with an IWB clip on the gun. I agree that I would not want to carry chambered with this sort of setup.
So his context when speaking about carrying with an empty chamber was directed towards carrying as he was at the time he made this recording. I have watch a lot of videos of these two gentle and not once that I can recall, have either of them recommended carrying out of full battery when using a quality holster. The difference is in the details. Carrying a Glock in a pants or jacket pocket or with an IWB clip versus carrying with a proper holster that protects the trigger is all the difference in the world.
From what I have gathered over the years of international LE NDs with Glocks, the overwhelming majority of these NDs occurred on reholstering the firearm (finger in the trigger guard, clothing being caught on the reholstering action, flexible holster materials etc).
NDs on drawing a C1 Glock seem to have occurred a full order of magnitude less NDs on reholstering of the firearm.
My CCW permit instructor (a Glock fan), stated, "if you are not willing to carry with the chamber loaded, then you shouldn't be carrying at all."
Miller - Did you come away from your CCW class with the belief that you are competent to carry a Glock with a round in the chamber?
Get a good holster and keep one in the chamber. I for one would not want to give up precious seconds chambering a round.
You're kidding, right!
(Are you really THAT slow?)
If you're going to carry empty chamber, practice practice practice that way. Several seconds to chamber a round is unacceptable.
No, I didn't. I don't think the one class is near enough. Its been too long since I shot on a regular basis, but a bigger part for me is to fully adopt the right frame of mind which accepts the responsibility of carrying. I have signed up for a defensive pistol course (2 days), that I believe will better prepare me for that. And, more time at the range before I carry the Glock.
I have spent a considerable amount of time practicing with my revolver (S&W snub .38), but I need to get comfortable with the Glock, which is new to me.
I appreciate your answer. In my humble opinion, your thinking seems perfectly in tune with responsible handgun ownership. Your development plan sounds like a good model for anyone new to CC with a Glock pistol.
Yup! That's about it. I've seen faster; heck, I've been faster; but, now that I'm old, the guy in the video is about as quick as I'm still able to be.
If anyone is wondering about the actual time differences? A good pistolero will add no more than .25 second to his shot speed; a decent gunman will add between .35 and .45 second to his shot speed. The last time I was timed (a few years ago, now) the best I did was .38 and my averages ran between .42 and .47 second.
Is there a disadvantage to the, 'Mossad Draw'? Yes, you've got to employ both hands - Internet ballyhoo aside, that's about it! Some people say that this is a huge disadvantage IF you get hit in an arm, and have one limb out of commission.
However, anyone who gets hit anywhere is - as long as he's not running on, 'pure adrenaline' - probably going to be out of the fight. If not permanently then, at least, for the moment. All bullet wounds hurt; so the, 'you've just been shot in the arm' objection tends to be highly prejudiced. The trick, the art, is simply not to get hit first - Period.
It can, also, be a mistake to assume that just because you're in C-1 you're going to be faster than the other guy and win the fight. In the real world (off the Internet) that simply isn't true; AND, I am, also, 100% certain it isn't true. There are an awful lot of, 'C-1 Glockeroo Cowboys' out there who represent a serious potential danger to their: families, friends, all strangers they come into contact with, and themselves as well from unnecessary daily C-1 carry.
Still, I've been on the Internet long enough to know that there's just no talking to some people; they ain't never been involved in a civilian armed encounter; they're, probably, never going to be involved in any CQB gunfight - anywhere, ever - and, still, they're willing to, 'risk it all' on unnecessary Daily C-1 carry.
This is all good, simple advice.
Exactly so, and I would further add that (as in my case) it's not an either/or dogma with CCW, just one condition or the other depending on the circumstances I anticipate.
This argument was even ongoing back in the 1800s when the revolver could get stolen and used against the person carrying the weapon. If you have a holster that covers the trigger you should be safe to have one in the chamber. You can also carry Israeli style until you get comfortable or even buy a different firearm for carry. If you have the money HK Uso Compacts are real nice.
Well written post and nice info on the times. I guess two points come to mind.
1. Using the logic in your last paragraph, why carry at all. Most people, virtually everyone that has a CCL/CCW will never be involved in a CQB or any other gunfight? Is it just something to do because you can or it's cool, since odds are overwhelming that you will never have to use it?
2. In that unlikely scenario that you do have to use a gun, the issue is not that you're shot in your weak arm and it's dangling useless (yes, it's possible, but not the more likely scenario), but instead, the fact that the vast majority of armed encounters are very short distances. So, either A. that half second may very well be a factor if the person is 5 yards away, and B. it is very likely that you will need to try and hold off an attacker with your off hand, while drawing and point shooting with your strong hand (the reason this is routinely taught in self defense classes).
I think this is probably my biggest head scratcher with those not carrying one in the chamber out of concern for an AD. Why buy a Glock/M&P/etc. then? Get a DA/SA with a safety (not just decocker). Then, you have both a heavier trigger pull in case you accidentally pull the trigger or it gets caught on your clothing, but more importantly it has an external safety.
Thank you for the compliment. (Not, 'left-handed' I hope!) I'm going to treat your reply with the respect that it deserves. (A lot!)
Your first question specifically alludes to this; doesn’t it:
Notice that I did NOT say anything about people in the general public not going armed. THAT is, indeed, the Socialist, ‘New World Order’ party line. A politically contrived abrogation of my (previously hard won) Constitutional Second Amendment Rights - An abrogation that I find particularly onerous and most strenuously resent.
‘New World Order’ politicians and the highly organized (but covert) national, ‘news’ media continue to incessantly find more and more diabolical new ways, and more and more meticulously contrived excuses to attack, undermine, and further abrogate one of the most important personal safeguards the American public has - NOT just the right to, ‘bear arms’, but the (God-given) historically inherent, and presumably, ‘unalienable’ right of self-defense! (N-1)
My objection is to, ‘HOW’ a majority of relatively unskilled, and modestly trained civilians choose to go armed: To wit, IN THE MOST DANGEROUS PERSONAL MANNER POSSIBLE! Yes, it is my considered opinion that far too many civilians are walking around all day long in C-1 when THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO NECESSITY WITHIN THEIR DAILY ROUTINES FOR THEM TO DO SO.
Are these people, ‘being cool’? Well, ...... I’ve never seen a flagrant open carrier who wasn’t trying his very best to be as, ‘cool’ as he is moronic; and my thinking is no different about civilians who insist upon routine C-1 semi-auto carry. (I spend a lot of time on public firing lines; and much of what I've seen has, probably, helped to turn my hair white!)
The social guideline is a simple one: ‘Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.’ If a legal gun owner wants to advertise his Second Amendment Rights then, rather than flagrantly sporting a dangerous and deadly weapon on his hip, WEAR A T-SHIRT, CARRY A PLACARD, OR HAND OUT COPIES OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, AND THE BILL-OF-RIGHTS. Don’t run around the local shopping mall scaring, ‘the bejesus’ out of everybody else’s: moms, dads, children, and the elderly - That’s neither socially polite, nor intellectually indicative of the best Judeo-Christian ethics have to offer.
Now, if I’m reading you correct your second question touches on your first, and is offered in regard to my above final comment:
Let me try to put things into a more pertinent (and intended) perspective: I’m an individual who has carried at least one pistol, everywhere I go, 24 hours a day, and for the better part of two decades now. ‘Why’? Simple! I’ve previously been attacked; and, as another member of this board once (rather cleverly) pointed out: ‘The devil sends more trouble some people’s way than others.’ Apparently, and for whatever reasons, I appear to be one of those people.
Once I was attacked inside my own home; and, again, twice I’ve been attacked while outside on the property. In the in-home incident I was unarmed; and our Pit Bulldogs came to my rescue. In the other two outside incidents I was heavily armed; and I had to draw a pistol in order to defend myself from impending serious harm.
This should tell you that I, personally, would be among the very last of people to ever proscribe any honest, law abiding individual from going armed. What I’m questioning is THE MANNER in which armed semiautomatic carry is customarily (and habitually) done by the general public. (N-2)
Your questions put me in a position where I have to consider breaking one of my own (albeit recently acquired) rules. After the obscene (albeit continuingly suspicious) gun massacre at Newtown, CT I promised myself that I would never again post any comment on the Internet that teaches someone out in the general public how to be better with, or to more skillfully handle, a combat handgun. (I don’t usually write about rifles. I certainly could; but, I don’t.) You have, however, raised a valid and important objection. This one time I’m going to answer it. You have said:
I’m going to tell you now that: IF YOU HOLD TO THIS LINE-OF-REASONING - this erroneous personal gunfighting philosophy - then your chances of being seriously wounded, or killed, during your next armed encounter are NOTHING SHORT OF ABSOLUTELY EXCELLENT!
Let me ask you this: 'What are you waiting for?' You watch police dash cam videos on television; right! When was the last time you saw a professionally trained police officer hesitate to draw his service pistol THE MOMENT HE REALIZED THAT HE MIGHT BE IN TROUBLE? In hundreds, if not thousands, of televised, real world, police programs I’ve never seen any such lapse in any police officer's personal security occur. (Just the opposite, actually!)
If you want to stay alive, you do NOT wait for an actor to get within arm’s reach of you. You carefully watch his hands; and, ideally, you make yourself ready-to-act at between 12 and 15 yards’ distance. (Don’t be shy about loudly warning a possible attacker off, either!) Anyone who waits until a half second’s time becomes critical has, in my carefully considered opinion, WAITED TOO LONG! Your most viable self-defense plan should have been, both, formulated and put into action LONG BEFORE, ‘arm’s reach and that last critical half second’ has arrived.
Personally, I don’t give a, ‘tinker’s damn’ about what, ‘they’ are teaching in today’s self-defense classes. While all of these classes are (I am certain.) fun and entertaining; as far as I’m concerned there are only three handgun self-defense classes I’d ever have any interest, whatsoever, in attending. I’d definitely be willing to study with and listen to: Dave Spaulding, D.R. Middlebrooks, and Louis Chiodo; but, that’s about it! As far as I’m concerned everybody else is actually in the entertainment business and is teaching CQB self-defense and pistol combat from, ‘behind the curve’. (N-3)
A more correct restatement of the remark, ‘The fact that the vast majority of armed encounters are very short distances.’ would be, ‘The fact is that the vast majority of armed encounters WHICH THE GOOD GUYS LOSE occur at very short distances.' I’m telling you, here, that if you end up grappling for your life inside an instantaneous CQB knife or pistol ambush, then, more than likely,
IT’S GOING TO BE YOUR OWN FAULT!
What is more, the usual Internet rational for going around all day long with your semiautomatic pistol in C-1, and exposing absolutely everyone - including yourself - to potential harm is most typically given as: In order to be supremely ready for just such a highly unlikely ambush attempt! (An ambush attempt, I might add, for which more than 90% of the, ‘Glockeroos’ out there are - as you, now, know - only very poorly prepared to defend themselves against.) (N-4), (N-5)
I hope I’ve satisfactorily answered your question.
(N-1) ‘Unalienable’, Thomas Jefferson’s careful choice-of-words, not mine! I would have used, ‘inalienable’; but, for reasons known only to himself, Jefferson chose to reintroduce this archaic word back into the English language from earlier 16th and 17th century usage.)
(N-2) For the neophytes and mentally confused: A revolver is NOT ever carried in C-1. Only a semiautomatic pistol can be carried that way; and for those who insist there is no difference between carrying a modern revolver with a fully loaded cylinder, and a C-1 Glock, ...... well, these guys have been spending too much time on the Internet. REVOLVERS DO NOT HAVE 74% + PRETENSIONED TRIGGER MECHANISMS!
(N-3) If Jim Cirillo were still alive I would have included him in this list, too.
(N-4) Don’t tell me about what police officers do, either. Uniformed police officers use, ‘Level Three’ high security holsters - NOT the open-topped, lightly secured holster designs that most of us who go about, ‘in mufti’ all day long prefer to use. An open-topped holster, and a minimally-secured pistol that’s, also, carried in C-1, all, lead up to only one thing: Thee most potentially volatile manner in which a civilian might holster and carry a semiautomatic combat handgun.
(N-5) I use the term, ‘combat handgun’ because that’s actually what it is; and, one more time, at the very least I think C-3 is how members of the general public should routinely carry their semiautomatic pistols! I've been able to survive, twice now, doing it; other competent and knowing gunmen should be able to do it, too.