What is the ARGUMENT for why one in chamber is dangerous?

[benEzra]

The tiny fraction of improbable situations, where we are attacked without warning at close range, are barely worth thinking about

My concern would be that "attacked at close range with little warning" is probably the most likely threat most of us would face, rather than the least likely.

To me, the time factor is much less important than the requirement of both-hands-free. If one is attacked at relatively close range, the other hand may be needed to fend off a blow; you may also need that hand to open a door, grab a stair rail, grab your child, and so on.

If you do not envision close-range threats, then carry mode is probably not a big deal (and certainly "to each his own" on that choice, fine by me). But I do believe that carrying with a round in the chamber does have significant benefits, and (assuming a quality handgun) little or no downside. If one is concerned about accidental discharges due to trigger snags, a drop-safe DA/SA with a manual safety (e.g., S&W 3913 or similar) would take care of that and still allow one-hand operation.

if we want to think about them, then yes, as you say -- why not carry a loaded gun in your hand, if you're that fearful of being jacked without warning?

Because it would be difficult to carry discreetly that way, and because it would interfere with your daily activities in ways that would make it totally impractical. One might as well ask "why not carry a full-size shotgun."

 

[Duke of Doubt]

benEzra: "Because it would be difficult to carry discreetly that way, and because it would interfere with your daily activities in ways that would make it totally impractical. One might as well ask "why not carry a full-size shotgun."

Well, yes, and like ReadyontheRight, I was speaking rhetorically. Then again, a lot of guys around here DO carry long arms. And not just in hunting excursions, either. Concealed carry of long arms is legal in my state, not that it's common. It may even have been an oversight.

But this does bring up an interesting point. "Brandishing" laws are enforced at very different levels and according to varying standards in different locales. People around here are comfortable around guns, and taking out your pistol and loading it in a sketchy neighborhood would NOT be considered illegal as a general thing, around here. Pointing it at someone sure would, unless they were a bona fide grave threat. But I've also lived in places where someone even SEEING your gun would be considered brandishing. So I admit it's a local thing; the culture around here may give me more time than some of the rest of you may have to respond to developing threats.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Direct personal experience. ...That just plain does not happen around here...

All that means is that it hasn't happened to you -- yet. You have presented absolutely no competent evidence to support your categorical assertion to the effect that one will not need his gun quickly [enough to justify carrying a round in the chamber].

...I just don't think the world works like that. And I've lived and travelled in a broad variety of settings....

And I've lived a long time, and travel much of the world, without ever needing any weapon with which to defend myself, let alone a gun. Maybe we should all just give up our guns like the Brady Bunch want.

 

[runrabbitrun]

I personally would NOT have a round in a chamber of any mag. feed weapon
unless it was a SHTF type scenario and a clear threat was immediate.
Then I'd be locked and loaded and remain AWARE that I was at the time and act accordingly.

A cleared weapon is a safe weapon and one in the chamber
is an accident waiting to happen.
IMO of course.

 

[benEzra]

But this does bring up an interesting point. "Brandishing" laws are enforced at very different levels and according to varying standards in different locales. People around here are comfortable around guns, and taking out your pistol and loading it in a sketchy neighborhood would NOT be considered illegal as a general thing, around here. Pointing it at someone sure would, unless they were a bona fide grave threat. But I've also lived in places where someone even SEEING your gun would be considered brandishing. So I admit it's a local thing; the culture around here may give me more time than some of the rest of you may have to respond to developing threats.

Good point. NC has a wierd (and very elastic) brandishing statute termed "Going Armed to the Terror of the Public," and unholstering a concealed firearm to chamber a round would likely fit the statuatory definition.

From the NC Attorney DOJ:

6. Going Armed To The Terror Of The People
By common law in North Carolina, it is unlawful for a person to arm himself/herself with any unusual and dangerous weapon, for the purpose of terrifying others, and go about on public highways in a manner to cause terror to others. The N.C. Supreme Court states that any gun is an unusual and dangerous weapon for purposes of this offense. Therefore, persons are cautioned as to the areas they frequent with firearms.

The wording of thte actual statute is extremely vague, and if one unholstered a firearm and was reported by someone fearful of firearms, things would probably be stacked against him legally.

 

[JT1JT1]

Wow, this really is a POLARIZED discussion.

Anyhow, what I find interesting to consider is THR members' own comments in another thread titled something like "Have you ever used your handgun in self defense?"

Assuming the comments in this other thread are a valid sample, it appears pipe full vs. pipe empty would have made no difference in the majority of the cases cited.

Of course, in the few cases it mattered, it probably mattered, uh, a lot.

I think there was also a related thread where THR members discussed the unfolding of actual SD situations. If I recall correctly, the majority in that thread indicated there was more than seconds from first alert to the decision to shoot or not.

In risk management, whether with firearms or finance, there can be a problem when one focuses too much on scenarios that are likely true outliers instead of focusing on managing the more likely risk.

Can I envision a scenario where my left hand is disabled and I have to shoot immediately? Yes. Do I think this is likely? No.

So, I find some logic in people who prefer to carry pipe empty, especially if they are trying to factor in the risk of AD and ND versus the probability of actually using the weapon to save their life in a scenario where failure would occur if one has to rack the slide.

That said, and before anyone flames me, my personal view is carry weapons should be carried with one in the pipe. Since, in theory, they should remain in a proper holster under your personal control and not drawn until needed. Now, if you play with your gun while doing your business in a public toilet stall, perhaps not.

I think guns in the house can be kept without a round chambered if one prefers that. My view is if I don't have time to chamber a round (or shell in the shotgun), then I need to fix my perimeter. This might provide another element of safety in a house where there are, for example, kids who might not yet know how to be safe with guns.

 

[Kleanbore]

From Duke of Doubt:

Perhaps you live in a dark world of psychotic grandmothers, just itching to creep up on you with a plate of cookies and then, when you least expect it, draw a .44 Magnum revolver on you from two feet away. That just plain does not happen around here.

What happens around here, based on scanner chatter, and in the vast majority of reported cases the victims are apparently not armed, are assaults and carjackings in parking lots and in parking garages; and attacks at car washes, at ATMs, and at service stations. Close range, quick response required.

Far more likely is a scenario where my car quits in a sketchy neighborhood and I start to draw local attention, or I'm hiking in the woods and stumble onto an illegal grow harvest in progress. Plenty of time.

That could be likely around here also, but in neither case would producing a weapon be justified.

So, the answer may be in part locale dependent.

From benEzra:

My concern would be that "attacked at close range with little warning" is probably the most likely threat most of us would face, rather than the least likely.

Mine also, as discussed above, and likely the only situation in which producing the weapon is justified. There may be some warning indications earlier, but they may not indicate the clear presence of imminent danger.

From JT1JT1:

That said, and before anyone flames me, my personal view is carry weapons should be carried with one in the pipe. Since, in theory, they should remain in a proper holster under your personal control and not drawn until needed. Now, if you play with your gun while doing your business in a public toilet stall, perhaps not.

I think guns in the house can be kept without a round chambered if one prefers that. My view is if I don't have time to chamber a round (or shell in the shotgun), then I need to fix my perimeter. This might provide another element of safety in a house where there are, for example, kids who might not yet know how to be safe with guns.

That makes a lot of sense to me. Before I retired my Smith Model 39, I used to think, rightly or not, that the sound of the slide closing might be helpful indoors.

In risk management, whether with firearms or finance, there can be a problem when one focuses too much on scenarios that are likely true outliers instead of focusing on managing the more likely risk.

True indeed, though in addition to likelihood, you also have to take into account the potential consequences.

I initially identified the following risks:

• Not being able to draw quickly enough (consequences include drawing too late and getting killed or injured, or drawing too soon and getting into a legal or civil liability bind). Mitigation: snag free gun, chamber loaded or no slide to cycle, practice, and pocket carry in some circumstances, allowing me to put my hand in the pocket to shorten response time without escalating -- thanks to Mas Ayoob, for that idea.
• Unintentional discharge (conseqequnces are obvious). Mitigation involves avoiding single action operation and using a proper holster.
• Failure to fire (consequences are obvious). Mitigation: I selected a revolver.
• Missing the target (consequences involve getting killed or injured, or hitting a bystander). Mitigation: laser grips, practice.
• Loss of the weapon to the assailant. Mitigation: reducing draw time, ensuring compete concealment.

I agree with your assessment of the risk of having a disabled hand, but consider that the other hand may be holding keys or a flashlight.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

Kleanbore: "That could be likely around here also, but in neither case would producing a weapon be justified."

Maybe I was unclear. As situations like those two scenarios I described gradually build, incremental responses short of actually drawing on those encountered can eliminate the initial disadvantages of chamber empty. For example, one might put his hand to the small of his back, loosen the gun from its holster, and even rack the slide behind one. All legal here if a stranger is advancing on you in a menacing way -- he does not see the gun, and it is not pointed at him. But if he pulls a knife and rushes you, Bam. Well, maybe not literally "bam." What I mean is, you have done all the preparation for the draw, and now quickly may maneuver the gun around from behind you, loaded, chambered, cocked. All that's left to do is draw a bead and squeeze if he keeps coming. And if his spider senses tingle and he backs off short of draw or, after advancing armed, afterdraw, all the better.

Nice, slow scenario, with legal, incrimental response.

 

[NavyLCDR]

We are not going to convince either side of the argument to move over to the other side so why don't we just carry our own guns the way we want to, and quit harping on the other guy for carrying his gun how he chooses. I am responsible for my own self defense and I am also responsible for the bullets that exit my gun at high velocity. To me that is the end of the story.

 

[Frank Ettin]

In risk management, whether with firearms or finance, there can be a problem when one focuses too much on scenarios that are likely true outliers instead of focusing on managing the more likely risk....

In risk management, one considers both the likelihood of the event and the gravity of the consequences. While a sudden attack may be unlikely, the probably consequences for the defender are catastrophic.

In addition, the likelihood of a sudden attack are largely out of the defender's control. He may be able to minimize the likelihood, through situational awareness, staying out of the wrong places, etc. But at the end of the day, the time, place and manner of contact will be decided by someone else -- someone whose interests are best served by surprising you.

On the other hand, the likelihood of a negligent discharge, the reason folks seem to favor carrying a gun without a round in the chamber, are substantially within the control of the defender. If the gun goes off when he didn't want it to, it's almost always because he did something wrong.

...As situations like those two scenarios I described gradually build, incremental responses short of actually drawing on those encountered can eliminate the initial disadvantages of chamber empty. For example, one might put his hand to the small of his back, loosen the gun from its holster, and even rack the slide behind one. All legal here if a stranger is advancing on you in a menacing way -- he does not see the gun, and it is not pointed at him. But if he pulls a knife and rushes you, Bam. Well, maybe not literally "bam." What I mean is, you have done all the preparation for the draw, and now quickly may maneuver the gun around from behind you, loaded, chambered, cocked. All that's left to do is draw a bead and squeeze if he keeps coming. And if his spider senses tingle and he backs off short of draw or, after advancing armed, afterdraw, all the better....

I sure do admire your ability to fantasize.

However, I subscribe to the notion that one can't make an appointment for an emergency and one can't know ahead of time how it will happen.

 

[X-Rap]

Maybe I was unclear. As situations like those two scenarios I described gradually build, incremental responses short of actually drawing on those encountered can eliminate the initial disadvantages of chamber empty. For example, one might put his hand to the small of his back, loosen the gun from its holster, and even rack the slide behind one. All legal here if a stranger is advancing on you in a menacing way -- he does not see the gun, and it is not pointed at him. But if he pulls a knife and rushes you, Bam. Well, maybe not literally "bam." What I mean is, you have done all the preparation for the draw, and now quickly may maneuver the gun around from behind you, loaded, chambered, cocked. All that's left to do is draw a bead and squeeze if he keeps coming. And if his spider senses tingle and he backs off short of draw or, after advancing armed, afterdraw, all the better.

Nice, slow scenario, with legal, incrimental response.
__________________
With that post I will admit defeat and refrain from further comments. My spider senses tell me that I cannot combat your rational of chambering a round behind your back being safer and surer than carrying with one in the chamber done under circumstances that let you know that you have picked up a round from the mag, returned slide into battery, not snaged a big bunch of your shirt or jacket.
I have no doubt that you have practiced this very scenario often so these won't present a problem.
Good luck and may all your "scenarios" be slow.

PS Make sure you turn the gun rightside up when you rack in the SOB position. The round will fall out on the ground and you will be made.

 

[rbernie]

I'm going to take the discussion in a (hopefully) slightly different direction.

When I am carryin' on my body, and the pistol is in my control at all times and properly holstered, I will carry with my pistol in Condition 1 (and conversely, I only carry pistols that support Condition 1 carry).

I am often required by circumstance, on the other hand, to engage in off-body carry. Depending on the carry mode used, I may carry the pistol with the slide down on an empty chamber and loaded with a full mag, due to my inability to guarantee that the thumb safety will not be inadvertently swept off.

I could probably carry two different handguns; one capable of Condition 1 carry for on-body carry and one DA/striker-fired for off-body carry. However, for a number of reasons I will only carry BHPs or 1911s and therefore I am willing to adapt my carry routine to accomodate them.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...I am often required by circumstance, on the other hand, to engage in off-body carry. Depending on the carry mode used, I may carry the pistol with the slide down on an empty chamber and loaded with a full mag, due to my inability to guarantee that the thumb safety will not be inadvertently swept off....

Now that, IMO, makes sense. I agree that it is unwise to carry a single action auto-loader, like a 1911 or BHP, off body in condition 1. I would also not carry such a gun in a pocket in condition 1.

I'm a fan of the 1911, and that is my usual carry gun, when I can legally carry. I use a holster. But for occasional pocket carry, I favor a S&W 640. I haven't had a need or reason to carry "off body", but if it comes up, I'd probably go with the 640, or, more likely, my second favorite auto-loader, an H&K P7M8 -- with a round in the chamber.

 

[Fred Fuller]

I carry FIVE rounds in the chambers. Does that make a S&W 642 five times as dangerous? Should I carry it empty and just load it with a speedloader when it's needed? Just say, for instance, "'Scuse me for a minute, Mr. Thug, while I load my pistola here?"

All I can say is, do only what you can manage to do with 100% safety. I started out in the 1970s carrying a J frame Smith. Later I transitioned to a Colt Commander- it took a while to get used to carrying a cocked and locked 1911. Then in 1990 I switched to a Glock 19, and had to get accustomed to carrying something with a completely different safety setup. I wound up keeping it in a holster that completely covered the trigger guard all the time (this was before concealed carry became legal in NC, you could legally carry a pistol openly in your vehicle though). It took a while to get used to the Glock as well.

When concealed carry became a legal possibility in NC again, I found myself looking for something more comfortable to carry on-body all the time than a Glock 19, which I had always carried as a 'car gun' before concealed carry permits became available. I found myself going full circle, and an Airweight S&W J frame is what I settled on after trifling with a baby Kahr in 9mm and a KelTec P3AT for a while. The 642 rides in a leather pocket holster (from THR's own Stephen McElroy, http://www.rkbaholsters.com/ ) that completely covers the trigger guard, as IMHO should be the case with any pocket pistol.

Of course YMMV...

lpl

 

[David E]

I strongly suspect that a lot of the self-appointed tactical gurus here, and I won't mention any names, either never have carried, or else seldom carry outside their own den.

I don't know about anyone else and maybe you have more experience than me. I've only been carrying a gun daily for 30 yrs or so, even when I leave my den !

Carrying a loaded gun (not "unloaded") without a round in chamber is perfectly adequate to deal with nearly every threat we may face where a gun will be useful.

The number of ASSumptions you make with this statement is simply astounding. Then you go on to describe a scenario where your car breaks down in a bad part of town. As some thug(s) start to congregate around your car, you surreptitiously draw your gun behind your back and rack the slide.... I laughed out loud until I realized you were serious.

Second, there exist what I will delicately refer to as "awkward situations" where a gun with a chambered round could be a significant hazard. Carry often enough, and you may encounter such a situation. Enough said.

I've been carrying about 11,000 days now and haven't encountered any such situation. What am I doing wrong ?

RunrabbitRun: A cleared weapon is a safe weapon and one in the chamber is an accident waiting to happen.

It depends on who is holding the gun.....

 

[David E]

You chamber-empty guys unintentionally brought up a good point.

HOW, exactly, do you train?

Do you train chambering a round during the draw?

Do you train chambering one handed? Without wearing the usual gunbelt?

Do you practice chambering weak hand only?

Do you practice by chambering a round behind your back? Then bringing it up quickly on target? Do you make sure your sneaky chambering motion was sufficient to get the slide fully into battery?

Do you remember to apply the safety/decocker before holstering?

Do you also practice "tactical unloading" for after a near encounter? Or do you go ahead and holster it chamber loaded until you're completely sure the situation is over?

If you DO holster a chambered gun, did you again remember to apply the safety/decocker first?

If the incident is NOT over and you have to draw quickly, will you remember THEN to take off the safety?

Will you reflexively chamber a SECOND round into the gun? Are you sure you won't cover the ejection port, blocking the already chambered round creating a serious jam? How fast are your gun clearing skills? How about one handed?


If you don't practice all of this, you should!

 

[Duke of Doubt]

David E: "I don't know about anyone else and maybe you have more experience than me. I've only been carrying a gun daily for 30 yrs or so, even when I leave my den !"

Now, what exactly convinced you that you were the one I was talking about, David?

David E: "The number of ASSumptions you make with this statement is simply astounding. Then you go on to describe a scenario where your car breaks down in a bad part of town. As some thug(s) start to congregate around your car, you surreptitiously draw your gun behind your back and rack the slide.... I laughed out loud until I realized you were serious."

Yes, David. I assume that I will face the realistic sort of threats in the future which I have sometimes faced in the past, and not some mall ninja fantasy of sudden attack from above by assassins disguised as little old ladies.

David E: "I've been carrying about 11,000 days now and haven't encountered any such situation. What am I doing wrong ?"

Evidently you haven't had to carry under less than ideal conditions. And that's O.K.

 

[David E]

I don't know if you were talking about me or not. I just wanted to make my experience clear.

What are "less than ideal" conditions to you?

Why do you keep talking about ninja assassins disguised as old ladies? No one else is.

And would you please share with us how, specifically, you train?

.

 

[scottgun]

the average self defense incident involves less than 3 shots fired, at less than 3 feet, in less than 3 seconds.

So any other of these scenarios listed above are outside of "the average". Training should encompass the average situation. Reducing variables allows for regular training to cover most situations. Of course training for out of the ordinary situations makes sense, but the majority of time spent training should be on the typical scenario.

 

[David E]

The "Shots fired" stat is wrong. It includes AD's, warning shots, suicides, animal put-downs, etc.

Likewise, I don't know who the guy is that had the stopwatch or tape measure at these events.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

David E: "What are "less than ideal" conditions to you?"

Anything from injury to mental and physical exhaustion to health problems to poisoning (not by assassins) to involuntary intoxication to clumsiness to bad weather (we just had some REALLY bad weather), to any number of other variables that can make the carry experience less than ideal.

David E: "Why do you keep talking about ninja assassins disguised as old ladies? No one else is."

It's a caricature of the scenarios some people consider realistic and necessary to train for but which I find improbable. Such as, for example, a sudden, unprovoked attack at very close range by an innocent-appearing assailant, armed with deadly weapons. Yes, that can happen. It probably happens a little more often in some places than in others I have chosen to spend more of my time. But it is NOT something I consider worth training much for or worrying much about. Too improbable. I don't train for a lot of possibilities; don't have the time.

David E: "And would you please share with us how, specifically, you train?"

Actually I can't get into that. No, it's not some secret spy thing; it's a legal thing. But I will state that I've never been to Gunsite, Thunder Ranch or the like.

 

[scottgun]

The "Shots fired" stat is wrong. It includes AD's, warning shots, suicides, animal put-downs, etc.

Likewise, I don't know who the guy is that had the stopwatch or tape measure at these events

I guess that it gets repeated enough, so it must be true

 

[conw]

How dare you disparage the average self-defense shooting? It's just an average guy trying to defend his 1.5 kids for crying out loud.

 

[David E]

David E: "What are "less than ideal" conditions to you?"

DukeofDoubt: Anything from injury to mental and physical exhaustion to health problems to poisoning (not by assassins) to involuntary intoxication to clumsiness to bad weather (we just had some REALLY bad weather), to any number of other variables that can make the carry experience less than ideal.

So under THESE conditions you're going to chamber a round? Wow.

DukeofDoubt: But I will state that I've never been to Gunsite, Thunder Ranch or the like.

This was already obvious !



.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

David E: "So under THESE conditions you're going to chamber a round? Wow."

No, just the opposite, barring dire emergency. Re-read the earlier post.

David E: "QuoteukeofDoubt: But I will state that I've never been to Gunsite, Thunder Ranch or the like. This was already obvious !"

Not interested. I figured out twenty years ago that those guys were selling a fantasy lifestyle to overweight, middle-aged divorced guys. The gun magazines hadn't yet sanitized their coverage of that stuff, back then.