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

Status
Not open for further replies.
And the IDF is preparing for what is, essentially, warfare. Even if asymmetrical and unconventional, warfare differs pretty significantly from self-defense.

And as an aside, I hope the two BG's in that video ended up dead, and unpleasantly.


Larry
 
And up pops the IDF argument again...

There is one very simple reason the Israelis carried without one in the pipe. When Israel was formed, the nation's military had to make do with cast-off weapons from other nations, with various manuals of arms, and in various states of repair. The simplest way to train without worrying about different safeties and guns mechanically failing during handling was to teach rack and fire. Add to that a wide variance of experience in their military, and it made sense AT THE TIME.

Fast forward. As they have moved their forces into modern weaponry, they are unit by unit starting to carry chambered.

Want to bet what condition Shin Bet uses?

-Mark
 
If your that uncomfortable carrying an auto with one in the tube, perhaps you would be better off with a revolver?
 
...the Shanghai Municipal Police... that deal with (or dealt with) very violent environments chose to carry without a round in the chamber.

If you're referring to the experiences of Sykes and Fairbairn, from “Shooting to Live,” here's why they did that:

They did so out of fear of accidental discharges with 1911 style pistols with the safeties deactivated (pinned permanently off, as I recall). They also decried the habit of their guys carrying spare magazines in their pockets with all their other junk, those magazines failing to work because they filled up with pocket lint, tobacco, matchsticks. And they lamented the unreliable stopping power of any firearms witnessed in use at the time, but advocated bigger bullets, just in case. They were great big fans of “hit anywhere” accuracy with point shooting burst fire at up to four yards, too. At least that's the nutshell version of what I remember.
 
you are correct, they did pin the safeties, as Fairbairn had witnessed officers being killed while dealing with inadvertant safety engagement.

It is a good point, that with more modern handguns they may have chosen differently.

However, the SUPERIORITY of empty chamber carry is not my argument.

The VIABILITY of it as a carry option is all I am talking about.

Isn't the saying like this?

Mindset

Skill set

Toolkit

?



This whole two thread discussion illustrates the difficulty of true communication.

Straw men arguments and talking past one another are concepts alive and well in our day!

:D

Tom
 
Right-o. It just seemed that they had other reasons for their empty-chamber carry, and it was less to do with speed and more to do with not accidentally shooting each other. If others want to carry empty, fine by me. I'd rather not.
 
Okay, I'm ready for one-in-the-chamber mode in my bedside HD gun. Is this bad for the weapon? I thought I read you'd be loading springs to leave it chambered indefinitely?
 
No, this is not bad for the weapon. This is not bad for the springs. It's the constant squishing and unsquishing of the springs that cause wear.
 
Okay, I'm ready for one-in-the-chamber mode in my bedside HD gun. Is this bad for the weapon? I thought I read you'd be loading springs to leave it chambered indefinitely?

Really, the only thing that affects springs these days is repeated compression and release (whatever the technical term for "decompression" is), not leaving them either compressed or uncompressed.

Some think that if you leave the magazine full all the time, you'd have a problem, too - not so with today's springs. There has been a lot of progress in spring technology in the last few years.

Sure, you've gotta replace them at some point, but springs are cheap. Your gun and your life aren't.

So load that HD gun up!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top