One in the chamber may have saved this man's life.

[KodiakBeer]

Not necessarily. Watch closely, the BG in the white shirt was firing with two pistols. The victim didn't have a chance. Poor bastard.

We could "what if" it to death, but he's being shot at while fumbling around trying to chamber a round. And note, he both goes for cover and assumes an isosceles stance, so he's got some training, while the BG is shooting one-handed gangsta style. It might well have ended very differently if his gun had been loaded.

 

[NMGonzo]

He never stood a chance.

Even more with his weapon unchambered.

 

[ccw_steve]

Although others may not agree, this is why I carry a gun without a manual safety, WITH one in the chamber at all times. There is simply less that can go wrong.

I feel terrible for the guy though, even with one in the chamber it looks like he was shot once or even twice prior to obtaining his firearm. Those are tough odds any way you look at it.

Hopefully others can learn from his death, both the things he did right AND the things he did wrong.

One profound way this video changed my thinking: in a bad situation it is very possible I could be shot BEFORE I draw.

 

[ironcode]

I haven't watched the video yet, but I gathered fein some of the comments that this didn't happen in the US.If that's the case, it might be worth mentioning that in some countries it's illegal to carry with one in the chamber. I realize that everyone decides for themselves how much to comply with laws like this, but it's nevertheless something to have in mind.

 

[KodiakBeer]

I feel terrible for the guy though, even with one in the chamber it looks like he was shot...

He obviously didn't have one in the chamber or he wouldn't have stood there getting repeatedly shot while trying to rack his slide.


Gunfight rules:

1. Have gun.
2. Have loaded gun.
3. Avoid gunfights whenever possible.

 

[Mikhail Weiss]

From the accompanying article (the 2009 attack seems to have taken place in Agra, India, a city famous for the Taj Mahal):

... two armed men barged in. Before Kundra could pull out his pistol, the assailants fired three bullets into him...

...Eye witnesses said power supply to the market had been suspended for five minutes to enable the assailants carry out their mission...

...Police sources said the shootout was the result of a feud between two families.

Guy was ambushed. Armed men burst in and shot him straightaway, while he was sitting down, before he knew jack.

His first reaction, at about seven or eight seconds in, looks like a bad one, likely indicating that he'd been hit. Though he soaked up shots initially, it also looks like he moved (good) to a static position (bad), from which there was no exit (bad) and took his eyes off of two targets (bad) that appear to have been no more than a dozen feet away.

Chambered or not, he was a fish in a proverbial barrel of trouble, and the only good chance I can see is if he'd been able to drop his assailants with fast CNS hits (like this guy), or to exit.

 

[FLAvalanche]

My opinion is simple...

You wouldn't carry an expensive hammer and throw it at your attacker so why carry without one in the chamber.

 

[mrokern]

First of all, Tom, thank you for the kind words.

Now, onto the current topic of the thread...

NEVER STOP FIGHTING.

Here is the bad news about combat, the reality that none of us want to consider:

-If you are in a fistfight, win or lose, you may get punched.

-If you are in a knife fight, win or lose, you may get cut (make that will, but that's another story).

-If you are in a gun fight, win or lose, you may get shot.

Here is the good news about combat:

-None of the above are necessarily fatal.

You should not, cannot, and must not throw in the towel, no matter how badly you are injured. If you truly have the will to live, you need to fight for it. You should be the most aggressive, ruthless, rabid badger-with-a-toothache-on-the-worst-day-of-your-life that you can be...and then take that up a notch. Be terrifying. Respond to a threat to you and your loved ones with such vicious, brutal violence that your opponent won't be able to keep up.

The problem with this is being able to control such a response. It's hard, and it's the same thing police officers face every day. Once the threat stops, so must your response. Amping yourself down from such an adrenaline dump is extremely difficult...but it's what you have to do to survive. If you don't fight with the will to utterly dominate and win, you are decreasing your odds before you ever pull the trigger. I'd direct you to the tragic Dinkheller video, which I use in some of my classes as a horrible lesson of what can happen when your opponent is more mentally prepared to win than you are.

For the most part, members here aren't military or SWAT, who must start the fight sometimes. Civilians are forced into a defensive position from moment one, having to react to violence that has already found them. You may not get the first shot off...but you should fight with every fiber of your being to get the LAST shot.

-Mark

 

[JohnKSa]

Rather than speculate about whether or not he would have survived, why not just watch it for the OBVIOUS lesson it teaches.

Whether or not it would have saved his life, it is very obviously NOT what most empty chamber advocates think a self-defense scenario will look like.

From what I've read they expect to be in a comfortable, relaxed position that makes it easy to respond with both hands. They refuse to even consider that they might instead be stumbling around in a futile effort to find cover, running into furniture and other obstacles, hearing gunfire, feeling the bullet impacts and sensing their strength beginning to fade.

I don't believe that any person with even rudimentary reasoning skills could watch that video and still continue to argue that an empty chamber isn't a huge tactical disadvantage.

 

[Evergreen]

I carry my S&W M&P 45 with one round in the chamber. My gun has no safeties and is essentially a SA with a little extra stiffness than a 1911. My holster does not have a thumb strap. Basically, I have no safeties, a light trigger pull. When I pull my gun it will go boom. I know my gun is always loaded and dangerous and I never get complacent when handling it. Many people say they have trained and trained with a safety, but when bullets are flying past your head you may wonder how well are the training worked. Had this guy had the same setup as I do, he would have dropped the attackers. Why only one man had a gun is what is absurd to me. Running a jewelry store in a third world country with only one unloaded gun? You reap what you sow.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

An empty gun only makes a great hammer or paper weight.

I really wish people would stop saying stuff like that. We can have a discussion about whether or not to carry chambered without resorting to oversimplified and ridiculous statements. Neither a hammer nor a paperweight can be made ready to fire bullets at an individual within seconds.

Is carrying chambered wiser? Yes. But don't overstep and say something as silly as a claim that a pistol with an inserted full magazine is equivalent to a hammer. If you really look at it, you can see it's a pretty stupid statement.

 

[atomd]

I'm with Ragnar on this one. One in the chamber is way better for sure (I wouldn't have it any other way myself) but I would choose a pistol with a full mag in it over a hammer or a paperweight any day in a fight. It's not ideal but saying it's a paperweight is oversimplifying the situation.

 

[KodiakBeer]

I think some of you are preparing for the wrong gun fight.

The assailant is not going to walk up to the seven yard mark, stand there and say "I'm going to attack you now, so please draw and chamber a round and assume a Weaver stance..."

If you don't have a round in your chamber, you have an unloaded gun. Period. You may have time to draw and chamber a round, but that's an enormous assumption on your part that may have fatal consequences should events not play out like you imagine they will.

If you own a modern firearm and carry it in a proper holster, there is no reason whatsoever not to carry it loaded.

 

[atomd]

If you don't have one in the chamber then you are not prepared for all situations....but you might be prepared for some. Who knows. I prefer to be prepared for as many situations as possible so I keep one in the chamber. I would also advise anyone else to do the same (especially with a gun you're carrying) because that is what I think is better for many many reasons. It's still pretty silly to refer to an unloaded firearm as a paperweight though. We all know there's a big difference. It COULD be as useless as a paperweight if things played out that way but since we don't know how they are going to play out.....we can't automatically assume either outcome. Personally I don't want to take that chance.

 

[mrokern]

There is only one guarantee in a gunfight...and it is that Murphy WILL stick his nose into your business. Murphy loves gunfights.

Is it possible that some situations might allow time to chamber a round? Sure.

But I can tell you with absolute certainty that nobody in a gunfight ever said to themselves, "Gee, I wish it had taken me an extra second to fire my first shot."

-Mark

 

[Straight Shooter]

One example that comes to mind is that with one in the chamber you can shoot the moment you level the gun out of the holster (from retention).

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

If you don't have a round in your chamber, you have an unloaded gun.

Really? So if you need to bring your pistol to the gunsmith and he has a sign that says "All weapons being turned over to the gunsmith should be cased and unloaded", he would be perfectly fine with you leaving a full magazine in the magazine well? It's unloaded right?

 

[mrokern]

The childish semantic games are getting old, and accomplish nothing but making people look foolish.

The point being made is that there is zero benefit to carrying unchambered beyond possible piece of mind if you aren't yet comfortable enough to carry with one in the chamber. If that's the case, then by all means, carry loaded but without one in the chamber...but please realize that such a compromise carries consequences, and work toward carrying chambered as you become comfortable.

There is no other benefit to forcing yourself to take an extra second (and I don't buy the half-second or less argument either, nobody here that I've seen thus far is a trick shooter) to bring your gun into the fight.

-Mark

 

[KodiakBeer]

Really? So if you need to bring your pistol to the gunsmith and he has a sign that says "All weapons being turned over to the gunsmith should be cased and unloaded",

If assaulted, your opponent is not going to have a sign saying "Load gun now". If you're carrying an old Jennings or something then perhaps you have a legitimate concern about carrying it with one in the chamber. With a modern firearm, it's just not a concern.

A few years ago, somebody put together a study of every accidental discharge that had occurred nationwide in any police agency. That's a pretty good basis for a study because agencies review such accidents and issue a report, so you've got good data to draw from.
Despite the wide series of personal circumstances, mechanical issues like broken safety's, etc, they found one commonality - in every case, somebody pulled the trigger.
So, it's that simple. If you don't pull the trigger, your gun isn't going off.

 

[shockwave]

If you don't have a round in your chamber, you have an unloaded gun. Period.

The Israeli Carry method is empty chamber, full clip. The IDF probably don't think they are unarmed. In the field, they kick major ass. There's an explanation of why they carry with an empty chamber and it's logical. But rather than get off on that tangent, you notice in clips like this one that a person trained in this style of carry has no apparent disadvantage. Drawing, chambering a round and putting the weapon on target are all performed in a single smooth fluid motion.

As a revolver guy, I'm always carrying in "condition 0" but if I did have a semi-auto and wanted to carry with an empty chamber, I'd practice Israeli carry until I was at least as good as the gentleman in the linked video.

 

[KodiakBeer]

The Israeli Carry method is empty chamber, full clip.

The Israeli's don't use antique clip-firing handguns. They do train using full sized modern handguns fed from magazines - and train, and train, and train, with (again) full sized combat handguns, not pocket carry pieces. Even so, it's a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

 

[engravertom]

Shcokwave, thanks for the link! I followed up to their website. Some good stuff there.

Someone good in that system would be better protected than average dude with a round in the chamber.

Tom

 

[engravertom]

One problem that exists, at least in the Israeli mind apparently, is that a round in the chamber lets the gun go BANG if your assailant gets your gun and points it at you.

Mr. Beer, maybe you know more than the IDF.

No one on the other thread ever interacted with my comments about the Shanghai Municipal Police. two professional organizations that deal with (or dealt with) very violent environments chose to carry without a round in the chamber. You may rightly prefer not to carry that way. But to totally dismiss that method as useless and foolish is not in any way a helpful way to discuss the matter.

Myself, I'm not smart enough or experienced enough to say that Fairbairn and the Israelis are or were idiots.


Tom

 

[KodiakBeer]

Mr. Beer, maybe you know more than the IDF.

If I'm wrong, then every police agency in the US is wrong. The military is wrong. Every firearms trainer is wrong.

If you can cite a single example of a modern gun just going off without someone pressing the trigger or beating it with a sledge hammer, then the IDF might have a point. As for someone running up and taking your gun from you, well, it is concealed isn't it?

 

[Crusader103]

But rather than get off on that tangent, you notice in clips like this one that a person trained in this style of carry has no apparent disadvantage.

That's assuming you have two hands available. Unfortunately, there are many reasons that your non-firing hand may not be instantly available, if at all, to chamber a round.

A stark distinction between many military forces (IDF or otherwise) and the general CCW public is the circumstances under which they are likely to employ force. Even our own military forces oftentimes carry empty chamber.... until combat is imminent.

Not only are the distances in military ops often greater than what we may encounter (a key difference), but military forces often know ahead of time that they are about to go into danger, and that is the moment that they chamber a round. They are about to launch an attack, deploy from the back of a helicopter, or make entry to a known terrorist hideout. You can bet that they are chambering a round before the fight is upon them. Yes, they practice for the remote possibility of having to chamber a round while under fire, but the round is generally chambered before entering combat.

Contrast that with the CCW public. We do not get to choose when our battles will occur, do not have the luxury of compadres by our side, and likely will not have the foresight of knowing when a deadly scenario will likely unfold.

The comparison of CCW to military operator just doesn't hold weight.