CCW: One in the chamber or not?

Discussion in 'Carry Issues' started by ArlenGunClub, Jan 24, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. PhotoFeller

    Silver Member

    I accept almost everything you say in this post as statements to support your carry mode, but the final paragraph where you slip in the knife with the old "...bury your head in the sand..." remark really is unwarranted; its aimed unfairly at C3 proponents who thoughtfully take the risk of ND along with the low probability of attack into consideration. You have your preferred method, which is fine, and we have ours.

    To me its amusing that many C1 advocates don't care if the probability of attack is 1 in a million, or 1 in a billion, carrying in C1 is a high, 24/7 priority. Yet the real high-risk things we do routinely, such as allowing our kids to ride on school buses without seat belts, don't even show up on the list of dangers we want to protect against. Are there other routine daily activities that present greater risk than assault by a bad guy...things that we fail to do everything possible to prevent? You bet there are.

    We all are guilty of "putting our heads in the sand" to some extent. I suggest that we be careful not to do it with risks that really have serious consequences and are more likely to strike us and our loved ones. I don't worry much about 1 in a million risks.

    Wanna kill these ads? We can help!
    #401 PhotoFeller, Feb 25, 2013
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2013
  2. Seriously?

    Seriously? U.S.A.F. Ret.

    This IS a difficult decision.

    I've carried with one in the chamber for six years.

    After reading this whole thread and weighing all the odds of all the scenarios.....

    I'm going start carrying with an empty chamber.

    It's a personal judgement call.....and it's a close one.

    But, for me, that's the way it's going to be. Never thought I'd win a quick-draw contest anyway and I'm hardly ever in situations where I might get jumped by bad guys.

  3. vandros

    vandros 10mm fan

    I, like you, fully appreciate the benefits of "consistency". But, I can't agree with the quoted argument. Different levels of threat call for different levels of response.

    Think going from White to Red color code. To me the colors can be mapped onto carrying a gun as follows:
    (1) Gun is in the safe, locked unloaded (totally safe - White).
    (2) Gun is in the holster or by the bed side in C3 (threat is possible - Yellow).
    (3) Gun in the holster or by the bed side in C1 (threat is present, its parameters unknown - Orange).
    (4) Gun in the hands in low-ready or other pertinent position, shooter behind cover/concealment (lethal threat is definite and clearly identified - Red).

    As you see, C1 v. C3 becomes part of a larger threat response framework. Holding c1 v. c3 constant has clear benefits (i.e., consistency), but also has downsides (i.e., reduced flexibility, and thus effectiveness in responding to various threats). You are clearly aware of the benefits, but seem to ignore the downsides.

    Just my 0.02!

    P.S. I think you and I will never agree on this (given our prior exchanges in this thread). Nevertheless, I want new shooters on this forum to be exposed to a variety of perspectives on this important issue.
    #403 vandros, Feb 25, 2013
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2013
  4. vandros

    vandros 10mm fan

    Not sure how I feel about this, bro. I'm personally very disinclined to mess with the internals of my firearm (be it custom triggers, firing pins, connectors, barrels, etc.). I feel if gun was made and tested in certain specific configuration, then when we, non-experts (which includes many gunsmiths), start messing with this configuration bad and unexpected things are likely to happen with gun functioning. I'd err on the side of leaving it stock internally.

    But, your desire to put an external safety on a glock is VERY understandable. Perhaps, we can appeal to glock to add this feature to some of its guns, given the # of unintentional discharges you quoted in your recent posts? That should appeal to glock's bottomline imho, given how many new shooters opt for glocks, then have unintentional discharges, and then forever switch to another weapon system...
    #404 vandros, Feb 25, 2013
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2013
  5. PhotoFeller

    Silver Member

    I understand your point of view, and I'm still stewing about the decision to have a manual safety added. I dunno, I may not give in to changing something that has served me well for years (C3).

    The gentleman who installs these kits is a well known custom gunsmith who guarantees the work for life. Glock's warranty doesn't cover the parts or his installation, but adding the safety is acceptable to Glock as not interfering with the factory warranty. The only modification of my gun would be the safety.

    The safety kit was designed by a former LEO who saw first hand the NDs police departments were experiencing with Glock pistols.

    Testimonials I've read on other forums say the safety works and looks like a factory installed component.

    I'll probably try it on one pistol and evaluate it for my other Glocks. Maybe.
    #405 PhotoFeller, Feb 25, 2013
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2013
  6. PhotoFeller

    Silver Member

    Here's another fascinating bit of information from the NYC Police Commissioner's report on firearm discharges involving officers:



    This would indicate the locker room is more dangerous than working the streets!
  7. One in the Chamber? Depends. Have you been properly trained and practice enough to be safe?
  8. PhotoFeller

    Silver Member

    2011 was a very good year for NDs (only 15) for the NYC police. Here is the ND history looking back a few years:

    24 in 2002
    25 in 2003
    27 in 2004
    25 in 2005
    26 in 2006
    15 in 2007
    15 in 2008
    23 in 2009
    21 in 2010
    15 in 2011

    If you add up the 10 year results, the total is 216 NDs, or an average of 22 per year.

    I don't know how many years NYPD has used Glock pistols, but I suspect a good many of these NDs (most, I suspect) were with Glocks.

    I do know it isn't politically correct to post statements here that cast a negative shadow on Glock pistols. Really, I'm not. And, I'm not bashing the NYPD. I'm just trying to highlight the true risk of carrying a Glock in C1 without gun handling experience and training beyond what most of us attain...and maintain.

    #408 PhotoFeller, Feb 25, 2013
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2013
  9. :faint:
    You can't figure out "how"?
    Maybe this will help.
    [ame=""]Dealing with One Hand Only FTE/Double Feed Stoppages by - YouTube[/ame]
    Is it fast...heck NO! Clearing a type 3 malfunction is time consuming with both hands, so it's a no-brainer that it'll take a tad longer with only one hand. But there certainly are ways to do it.
  10. Peace Warrior

    Peace Warrior Am Yisrael Chai

    Interesting, so what then is, quoting you, a "God fearing society?"
  11. PhotoFeller

    Silver Member

    PW, I still don't have a grade from my last assignment. Lets take one step at a time, shall we?

    I'm thinkin' we may be getting off on a track unrelated to the OP. Don't you think so?
  12. rolltide_pisco

    rolltide_pisco NRA Life Member

    Since I CCW a Glock 27, I carry one in the chamber. It's not going off unless I pull the trigger
  13. vandros

    vandros 10mm fan

  14. PhotoFeller

    Silver Member

    Some say "If you don't carry with one in the chamber, why bother to carry at all?"

    I believe its better to have SD capability for 99+% of the situations with C3 than 0% of the time with no firearm.

    Proponents of C1 say a surprise attack that allows no time to rack the slide would be deadly. (Some say this situation may be deadly no matter what carry mode you use.) But what about the more likely scenarios where we are forewarned and can chamber a round? In these cases, having a weapon in C3 is just as effective as having one in C1.

    Can an operating problem occur under extreme stress when the slide has to be racked. Yes, but we're not talking about brain surgery here. In fact, racking the slide is about the simplest and easiest maneuver I can think of with a hand held device. It's a 'no brainer'.

    So, I'll take 99+% protection any day compared to no protection at all. If you think 99% is too high, plug in the appropriate number and I'll take it compared to not having a gun at all.
    #414 PhotoFeller, Feb 26, 2013
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2013
  15. vandros

    vandros 10mm fan

    To play devil's advocate for a moment, I think the essence of the argument proponents of c1 are making is as follows (as I understand it): We should train/prepare for the worst case scenario. If we do, we'll be able to take care of all scenarios.

    Owning a gun, in the first place, is an example of this. You and I, own a handgun to some degree because we want to be ready for the "worst-case" (no matter how rare) scenario of facing an armed attacker wishing to hurt/kill us, our loved ones, or other innocent people. So, by virtue of owning a gun, we seem to already be buying into the idea that preparing for the worst-case scenario is a very reasonable thing to do.

    So... If we own firearm to prevent the worst-case scenario, in order to remain logically consistent, carrying in C1 appears to be the only reasonable behavior (as compared to C3 or C4). C1 does objectively give us an edge in various worst-case scenarios described in this thread (no matter how probabilistically unlikely those scenarios are. to calculate this, first calculate probability of armed attack, then of all these attacks calculate probability of you becoming injured or in other ways unable to rack the slide).

    But, as many mentioned, there is a problem with such line of reasoning. As you prepare (by owning a gun and carrying it in C1) for one worst case scenario (for example, armed attacker trying to kill your family incapacitates your strong arm) and reduce the probability that you will lose in such scenario, you also increase the likelihood of another worst-case scenario (having an unintentional discharge that can hurt/kill you, your loved ones or other innocent people) and increase the likelihood that you will lose in that scenario. And that's the rub - there is no solution where you are prepared for all worst-case scenarios perfectly. So, one has to "pick their poison" and make their own calculus (depending on one's threat assessment, one's skills, one's level of training and amount of time dedicated to maintaining that training, one's perception of how innately careful one is, and many other factors). You and I are in agreement - our careful calculus leads us to opt for C3. We are also in agreement, I think, that people calling us wimps or idiots for doing this are macho imbeciles who don't realize how the same solution doesn't apply to every problem. We are also in agreement that everyone should engage in very careful calculus on their mode of carry and not follow blindly what some guy told them they aught to do (e.g., listen to experts carefully, but recognize that even they do not know your situation as well as you do).

    Another problem with this quite understandable desire to be prepared for the worst-case scenarios occurs when such line of reasoning is taken to its extreme. Then, if you are an average person leaving in an environment with average level of threat present, you become a "prepper." In this case you begin to see as very reasonable (and in fact as the only prudent options) the following behaviors: stocking up on Spam and water needed for a 6-months survival in a situation when you are unable to resupply, surrounding your house with a 2-inch-thick steel fence, digging a water- and chemicals-impermeable underground bunker, constantly wearing a bullet-proof vest, conceal-carrying 7 glocks on you at a time, stocking up on short-wave radios in the event your town's communication system is destroyed, trying not to leave the house, acquiring a sniper rife and AK stocked with a minimum of 10k rounds for each, placing a handgun, shotgun, night-vision goggles, a crossbow and frame-thrower under your bed, building an air balloon to evacuate in case asteroid hits ocean and massive tsunami floods the planet, etc. If one is a special-forces operator working in the field (or even a normal citizen living in a very dangerous area) - some of these might be very reasonable behaviors. But if one is a Joe-6-Pack living in a crime-free town, perhaps he has gone too far in trying to be prepared for the worst-case scenario...

    OK, back to work... :)
    #415 vandros, Feb 26, 2013
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2013
  16. In my opinion, whether C1 or C3 should be guided by what you feel most comfortable/safest with. If someone is a sleepwalker, they shouldn't keep a gun with a round chambered for obvious reasons. If one isn't, that's different.

    There's a scenario which is not all that far fetched, IMHO.

    Some monster has broken into your home, and is in your bedroom, in the dark. If you don't have a round already chambered, how quietly can you rack the slide and get ready? I can tell you I can't rack a slide with no sound; perhaps you can. At that moment, if you are laying in bed and can slip your hand onto a ready to fire handgun, you have the best chance.

    Some burglars/rapists/murderers/etc. can get into unlikely places pretty quietly. As for me, I want to be ready to rumble if that fateful time comes.
  17. PhotoFeller

    Silver Member

    Glad you took a break to catch up with the discussion. Excellent post.
  18. I once shadowed a police officer. They have to handle their firearm more than we do. Any time they book an arrest, they must unholster and put in lock box. I don't unholster most of the time. I simply take the holstered gun off and put in safe.
  19. PhotoFeller

    Silver Member

    Squeeze, I can't rack a slide silently either. Nor do I want to.

    Folks used to say the sound of their shotgun chambering a round would send most burglars packing. Maybe racking a slide would have the same effect.

    My bedside gun is kept in C3, but I have a dandy alarm system that will awaken me and the neighbors. In fact, my alarm system from ADT provides coverage of doors, windows (glass breakage) and motion detectors. Heat and smoke detectors are also integrated into the ADT system. This is my effort to mitigate risk of home invasion and fire for my family. The service is expensive, but its more important than 'stuff' we do without to afford it.

    The argument I've heard most against a ready-to-go bedside gun is the risk associated with grabbing it in the darkness before you're fully awake. That makes sense to me.
    #419 PhotoFeller, Feb 26, 2013
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2013
  20. I've been thinking about c1 and c3 a lot lately with my Glocks and remora holster. Last night I had sweats on with g27 in remora holster. I was also carrying my 2 month old girl in my left arm. I had no way to rack the slide should someone barge in. I would hate to be looking frantically for a hard surface to rack or finding a spot to put her down quickly.

Similar Threads Forum Date
A Glock 26 (Carry with or without a round chambered? ) Carry Issues Aug 24, 2015
Does this chamber look correct? General Glocking Jul 17, 2015
Unable to empty the chamber General Glocking Jul 5, 2015
Can I retrofit a Loaded Chamber Indicator (LCI) on gen 1 glock General Glocking Jun 18, 2015
Glock Says Carry With Empty Chamber: Legal Implications? Carry Issues Jun 7, 2015
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Duty Gear at CopsPlus