To GLOCK CCWers

[MinnMooney]

I carry an SA-XD .45ACP which has no manual safety. It ALWAYS has one in the pipe as I don't know how nervous or clumsy I'd be if things started happening fast and unexpectedly. Would I remember to rack? Would I get it all the way back and do it right or would I cause a jam if my hand slipped or lost grip on the slide? Too many things to go wrong and then you're standing there with the BG now knowing that you have an unfireable weapon... at least for a few seconds. No Thanks.
I'm loaded and ready with my finger outta that little steel loop that goes around the trigger.

 

[Master Blaster]

Keep your finger off the trigger until the sights are on the target and you are ready to shoot.

In a situation where you are under duress, you can accidentally pull the trigger on any gun, if you dont practice this rule.

Glocks dont fire unless you pull the trigger, use a proper holster that covers the trigger and its as safe as any gun can be.

 

[glockman19]

YES. Your finger is your safety. Same with my S&W 642 no safety, round in chamber, pull trigger, goes bang.

 

[Old Dog]

Am I just getting cranky in my old age, or does someone ask some version of the carrying a semi-auto with a loaded chamber question every other week now?

An auto without a round chambered is still a pistol that will take about a quarter second more to make ready,

Um, if that's the time it takes you to draw a Condition 3 pistol from the holster, rack/chamber and get on target ... you are really, really fast.

 

[[email protected]]

5.5 trigger

The minute that I bought my new Glock I had the gunsmith install a 3 pound trigger. The guy that shot himself is an idiot. He pointed the gun at his foot and pulled the freaking trigger!!!

How does that reflect on just a Glock??? Would that not have happened with ANY loaded firearm?? I know you`re thinking,"but others have a safety" sure some do but by the idiotic mistake that this guy made, I`m not sure if a safety would have helped.

If you`re concerned about this subject to an extreme and feel that you may "forget" about the fact of Glocks having no safety then just don`t buy one but if this is just a forum used to degrade the Glock weaponery,it ain`t working, as you can see by the comments.

Everyone has a choice of which handgun they feel comfortable with. I have a Ruger P94, Glock 17., Glock 22 and I am about to get a CZ 97B. Point is, they`re all great guns. I personally think that the Glocks have a slight edge over their competitors but thats just my on opinion. So as I`ve said before, if you don`t like it, don`t buy it but don`t downplay it. Peace,Love and Happiness to all.

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

I carried a glock for about a week with an empty chamber and it alleviated my fears since I never found it with the hammer down at the end of the day.

Regarding how fast you can rack the slide and make it ready to fire, you are assuming both arms are free. Most violent attacks happen very close and very fast. What's your natural reaction when someone starts swinging at you, grabbing you, etc at arms length? You put up your off side arm to fend off the attack right? Unless you can backpeddle faster than he can advance, while racking your slide, you are putting yourself at a disadvantage from the get-go and are making dangerous assumptions about what'll happen.

If trigger pull weight is a concern, there are NY1 and 2 triggers available that'll increase pull weight, although it's not an issue if you keep your finger off the trigger regardless of whether or not there's one in the pipe.

 

[AVESguy]

mpick says
"Part of my problem in these threads is that I always see people imagining worst case scenarios, and then running with them. "What if you've been shot in the arm and can't rack the slide?" Well, I say if you've been shot in the arm because you haven't been paying attention to what's been happening around you, then it's a damn lucky thing you didn't get shot in the head, instead. It's like people know the answer they want to hear, and come up with the scenarios that best fit their opinion on the matter. It's all just a little too Hollywood for me."

What situation where I actually had to draw a weapon would NOT be worst case scenario? I can't imagine it. And having the presence of mind to think about racking the slide. My assumption is that if it happens, it will be fast and it will be NOW. This has nothing to do with hollywood (where did that come from? ) and everything to do with reality. And the many training classes I'ave had with top name trainers. None recommends carrying with an empty chamber. All recommend AGAINST it and see it as a sign of inadequate training.

To each his own.

 

[Quiet]

I've carried a Glock locked & loaded for over 11 years now.

For the first 5 of those years, the Glock I carried had a 3.5lb trigger.

Never had a negligent discharge, never felt uncomfortable carrying it loaded.

Adhere to the rules of gun safety and you shouldn't have any problems when carrying any type of loaded firearm.

 

[Harley Quinn]

I have mentioned this many times now.

I am not on duty anymore so I carry it not loaded in the chamber and the trigger in the pulled position.

It is a house gun also, needs to be like that around the house, IMHO...

My feelings are...that is the best way to carry since I retired.

If I was hunting, I'd have it fully loaded. I figure just having one (firearm) near is a huge help.
I am not going to be making it aware I have it on me. Just my thoughts.
If needed it will be in position very quickly... I'd be jacking one in and yelling some thing I am sure.

Not just going to shoot from a guarded location with no warning.

 

[inherentical]

What situation where I actually had to draw a weapon would NOT be worst case scenario? I can't imagine it. And having the presence of mind to think about racking the slide. My assumption is that if it happens, it will be fast and it will be NOW. This has nothing to do with hollywood (where did that come from? ) and everything to do with reality. And the many training classes I'ave had with top name trainers. None recommends carrying with an empty chamber. All recommend AGAINST it and see it as a sign of inadequate training.

The Hollywood crack came from people who have never been in any kind of real-world situation where they've had to use a weapon in self-defense letting their imaginations concoct wild Ramboesque fantasies where they are standing there, shirtless and glistening, shot through the arm and returning fire in the manner of all action-film heroes. Or that everything will come down to their ability to quick draw against the villain at high noon, out in front of the town hall. Read through some of the scenarios people throw out there, and you'll see what I mean.

I have no idea of what situations you've been in where you've had to resort to the use of force to resolve them. I've never had classes with top name trainers, either. I just think that if someone wants to carry their piece without a round in the chamber, they can do so. It doesn't make their firearm worthless, nor does it mean they are unarmed.

 

[Lightsped]

Yes, I always carry my G26 with a round in the chamber. It resides in a Galco Royal Guard.

 

[esq_stu]

If you follow the safety rules, we're all a lot safer if you keep one in the pipe.

If you can't follow the safety rules, you shouldn't have a gun.

 

[Harley Quinn]

Safety rules etc..

Studies have been done many times that show if a gun was not in the house the children and other folks are a lot safer.

I would say for the average person who has a Glock the safest is, empty chamber. Makes sense to me

 

[mljdeckard]

Remember that the whole point of carrying is to be ready to defend because you can't wait for the police. In not chambering a round, you are saying; "I can't wait for the police, but I absolutely know that the evil situation which will require me to draw a gun will give me enough time to chamber a round first." This flies in the face of defense against prosecution that you had to draw and pull, you had no other choice. Every extra action you take opens the possibility that the danger wasn't quite so imminent after all.

I carried a Glock for years, but I switched back to a 1911. In my head I know that the action required to fire a 1911 from condition one is more involved than pulling the trigger on a Glock. But at the same time, I know that the internal safeties built into a Glock are much more redundant and reliable than a 1911. I carry both with the understanding that it is MY ACTIONS, not mechanical redundancies, that make a weapon safe.

 

[JMD]

Studies have been done many times that show if a gun was not in the house the children and other folks are a lot safer.

Do you have a link to these studies or can you provide any other information?

 

[unlearned69]

Carrying GLOCKS for a year or so, and I always carry with one in the chamber.

 

[76shuvlinoff]

I say carry the way you are most comfortable and shoot the ammo that works in the guns that work for you. If you are not comfortable with any part of that then you are a danger to someone or even yourself.

In the DTI class it was hot with a topped off mag regardless of the make of the pistol. As long as everyone follows the rules there is no issue.

 

[kahr404life]

I carry a round in the chamber but I always use a holster that covers the trigger.

 

[Harley Quinn]

JMD,
This is just one of hundreds if you care to google

http://www.askbjoernhansen.com/2002/10/24/yes_your_children_are_not_safe.html



You may or maynot believe this tale like I mentioned just google the subject.

 

[sacp81170a]

Harley Quinn, since when can anyone believe anything Michael Moore says? Was he perhaps referring to the thoroughly discredited Kellerman study when he was writing the article?

Back to the actual subject, carrying without a round in the chamber as a matter of training and choice is often credited to the Israelis and so it is called "Israeli carry". Those who advocate this type of carry ignore the circumstances the Israeli Army found itself in during its early years. The handguns it had available were a polyglot of models, so to simplify the manual of arms they reduced their training to: draw, rack slide, shoot. This avoided all the different combinations of safeties and action types and made it possible to train large numbers of troops relatively quickly.

The problem with this is that it depends on having both hands available to rack the slide. As others have mentioned, grappling with a VCA, holding something in the other hand, pushing a child to safety all occupy that other hand. John Farnam in particular is against this method of carry. For the record, every police officer you see carrying a Glock has a round in the chamber because when he or she needs that weapon, they need it NOW!

 

[AZ_Rebel]

If you're serious about your personal safety and that of your family your gun should be loaded with a round in the chamber. Take whatever precautions you need to to keep the firearm out of improper hands. If you are not comfortable with a loaded gun you need more (or perhaps better) training. One of Jeff Cooper's rules -ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADED... He often added, "Make that so... don't pretend!

JMD,
This is just one of hundreds if you care to google

Wow... we have reached a new low when we quote Michael Moore as an authority! Get a grip!

 

[yongxingfreesty]

one in the pipe so many times, just keep ur nose picker off the trigger.

 

[SilentArmy]

My 36 in IWB Holster "ready to fire" My 27 with Clipdraw clip "ready to fire" with a Saf-T-Blok to avoid snagging exposed trigger. It makes me feel better so all you "saf-t-blok is a gimmick" clowns can eat it!

 

[Harley Quinn]

Wow... we have reached a new low when we quote Michael Moore as an authority! Get a grip!

I knew someone would read it

I am not so sure as to an authority but like so many at this location he does have an opinion.

 

[Robert Hairless]

Harley Quinn:

Studies have been done many times that show if a gun was not in the house the children and other folks are a lot safer.

Safer than what? Think about what you've just said. How in the world could anyone do a study of the same children and the same other folks in the same house both with a gun there and without a gun there? This does not make sense even on its face. Change those factors to something that could be quantified on some other basis and what you have are statistics that make equally little sense because you would be comparing different situations on the assumption that they are the same.

For example, none of the children or other folk who have lived in my home with a gun in the house have ever been harmed by it and have been perfectly safe. But children or other folk living in a crack house with a gun in it certainly are unsafe. So if your statisticians use a sampling of just my house's occupants and those in the crack house, the chances are very good that they could prove it's safer to live in my house. Yawn.

But wat you might mean is that there could be statistics showing that children who live in a house that has a gun are more likely to be shot by that gun than children who live in a house without one. Without going into the nature or extent of those statistics, why would anyone be interested even in contemplating such silliness. It doesn't make much sense either.

Statistics certainly should show that children who live in a family that does not have a family car are infinitely less likely to be killed by the family car than children who live in a family that does have a family car. For that reason is it too dangerous for any family to have a car?

There also could be sound statistical evidence that children who never learn to read cannot read. The importance of that evidence is undeniable: if they never learn to read and therefore cannot read it is impossible for them to be harmed by anything they read.

As a Marine you might be interested in a curious fact I've recognized. Did you know that of all the American military men who fought and died in World War II, 100% of them did not survive? The significance of those statistics is that it would have been much safer not to have died in World War II.

I'm turning into Michael Moore before my very eyes! I crave starchy food and lots of money and heaps of adulation. Unlike Michael Moore, though, I have few opinions but great capacity for appreciating the ridiculous, and I would like to own a Glock 20. I also know that the end with the hole is supposed to be pointed away from me.

I would say that if an informal poll were taken from a significant sampling of muggers and other violent criminals the vast majority would agree that it is far safer to confront a victim who carries a Glock without a round chambered. So maybe you're right.