ReadyontheRight
Member
fiddletown -- I am certainly not saying Condition 3 is a superior self-defense doctrine. I don't think DoD or anyone else here is either.
What is the ARGUMENT for why one in chamber is dangerous?
- Thread starter newbie4help
- Start date
- Status
Here's a simple question.
You carry condition 3. You rack the slide, go into SA mode, and whether or not you use the weapon, you must remember to decock and holster the weapon, with a round in the chamber (where you refuse to start). If you are going to end up with a round in the chamber, and having a round in the chamber adds no level of risk, why not carry with a round in the chamber? The crucial premise is "having a round in the chamber adds no level of risk." Do you have a reason compelling you to think the 92FS has an added level of risk by having a round chambered, with the safety on and the trigger not being pulled?
It seems unlikely that in a high-stress incident you are going to have the time and fine motor skills to safe your weapon, remove the magazine, unload the chamber, put the magazine back in, and re-holster. That's a lot of steps. The cops come up while you are doing this (likely in a self-defense shooting) see you manipulating the weapon and you get shot. You don't train to carry loaded in a holster, so you FUBAR the re-holster and shoot yourself.
It just seems that carrying a weapon like the 92FS in condition 3 is redundant. That's why the thing has so many safeties (not just the thumb, but the trigger disconnet and if you look at the rear of the 92FS while holding the hammer back, if you engage the safety the firing pin is completely rotated out of the way). In other words, a safed 92FS is about the same as having a 9mm round sitting in a box. There is nothing to hit the primer.
Besides, the Beretta 92 (DoD's weapon) is full of safeties. It's pretty nigh impossible to ND with the safety on and the finger off the trigger. With the safety off, you must still put your finger on the trigger. With the safety on, the trigger does not function.
I don't see much advantage of carrying without one in the chamber. If your reasoning is to get a first shot SA, why not just get a SAO gun?
I'm just not seeing why DoD argument is particularly compelling.
And the whole thunderranch thing is just a red herring. If the real fear is an AD, then learn how your weapon's safeties work. The 92fs cannot discharge without disengaging the safety and a trigger pull. If the issue is the DA trigger pull, get a SAO gun.
Is it really any more complicated than that?
If you really want Condition 3 carry, why pick a gun with a safety that you could fail to disengage, or that you could engage when pulling back the slide?
I started with a Beretta PX4 and in the course of 2 days realized it was pointless to carry condition 3. The weapon cannot discharge with the safety on and the trigger blocked by a holster.
You carry condition 3. You rack the slide, go into SA mode, and whether or not you use the weapon, you must remember to decock and holster the weapon, with a round in the chamber (where you refuse to start). If you are going to end up with a round in the chamber, and having a round in the chamber adds no level of risk, why not carry with a round in the chamber? The crucial premise is "having a round in the chamber adds no level of risk." Do you have a reason compelling you to think the 92FS has an added level of risk by having a round chambered, with the safety on and the trigger not being pulled?
It seems unlikely that in a high-stress incident you are going to have the time and fine motor skills to safe your weapon, remove the magazine, unload the chamber, put the magazine back in, and re-holster. That's a lot of steps. The cops come up while you are doing this (likely in a self-defense shooting) see you manipulating the weapon and you get shot. You don't train to carry loaded in a holster, so you FUBAR the re-holster and shoot yourself.
It just seems that carrying a weapon like the 92FS in condition 3 is redundant. That's why the thing has so many safeties (not just the thumb, but the trigger disconnet and if you look at the rear of the 92FS while holding the hammer back, if you engage the safety the firing pin is completely rotated out of the way). In other words, a safed 92FS is about the same as having a 9mm round sitting in a box. There is nothing to hit the primer.
Besides, the Beretta 92 (DoD's weapon) is full of safeties. It's pretty nigh impossible to ND with the safety on and the finger off the trigger. With the safety off, you must still put your finger on the trigger. With the safety on, the trigger does not function.
I don't see much advantage of carrying without one in the chamber. If your reasoning is to get a first shot SA, why not just get a SAO gun?
I'm just not seeing why DoD argument is particularly compelling.
And the whole thunderranch thing is just a red herring. If the real fear is an AD, then learn how your weapon's safeties work. The 92fs cannot discharge without disengaging the safety and a trigger pull. If the issue is the DA trigger pull, get a SAO gun.
Is it really any more complicated than that?
If you really want Condition 3 carry, why pick a gun with a safety that you could fail to disengage, or that you could engage when pulling back the slide?
I started with a Beretta PX4 and in the course of 2 days realized it was pointless to carry condition 3. The weapon cannot discharge with the safety on and the trigger blocked by a holster.
David E
Member
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2008
- Messages
- 7,459
I posed many of the same questions earlier. DoD refused to answer them, citing "legal reasons..." 
Here's the bottom line: If someone makes dozens of excuses, such as impossible scenarios, spontaneous discharges, etc, they do so to rationalize to themselves that there are other "reasons" to keep the chamber empty besides their own ineptitude.
If someone does not trust themselves to safely handle a chamber loaded gun, they're probably right !
.
Here's the bottom line: If someone makes dozens of excuses, such as impossible scenarios, spontaneous discharges, etc, they do so to rationalize to themselves that there are other "reasons" to keep the chamber empty besides their own ineptitude.
If someone does not trust themselves to safely handle a chamber loaded gun, they're probably right !
.
X-Rap
Member
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2006
- Messages
- 6,657
X-Rap
Senior Member
Join Date: 09-23-06
Posts: 568 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.
__________________
In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king
benEzra
Moderator Emeritus
I see where DoD is coming from, and I respect his choice. My choices are different (3913LS 9mm in a Galco IWB holster, round chambered, hammer down, safety off, 2 spare mags), because that's what I am comfortable with, and what I think best fits my own situation. The geography, culture, and threat profile around DoD are a bit different from those that I would encounter, or those that others might. But the man is carrying a firearm (which puts him ahead of 90%+ of the population already), and a very capable one at that, in an effective caliber, and most importantly he has his antennae up. Is a Beretta 92 in Condition 3 slower to bring into action than a .38 in the front pocket or a 3913 in Condition 2? Sure. The Beretta is a bit more capable than either once he gets it into action, though.
Personally, I do feel that having a round chambered in a quality, drop-safe firearm carried in a holster that protects the trigger guard adds zero net risk, but that does not automatically make carrying a round chambered mandatory for everyone with a CCW, IMO. I choose to do so, but can respect the choice of someone who does not.
Personally, I do feel that having a round chambered in a quality, drop-safe firearm carried in a holster that protects the trigger guard adds zero net risk, but that does not automatically make carrying a round chambered mandatory for everyone with a CCW, IMO. I choose to do so, but can respect the choice of someone who does not.
I'm not saying there is anything wrong with DoD's decision.
I am just saying, it doesn't seem to hold up well against the arguments presented.
"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."
It is very difficult to rack the slide with your hands behind your back. If you can do it 100/100 times with no errors in a smooth and efficient manner, please teach me your technique. You must have amazing coordination and many hours to devote bringing this action into muscle memory.
"But if he pulls a knife and rushes you, Bam"
you did not get the slide far enough back to clear the round into the chamber. No Bam.
You did not disengage the safetY. No Bam.
You inadvertently engaged the safety. No Bam.
The assailent was already on you by the time your hands were behind your back. Both hands are tied up in an extremely disadvantageous position - you have very little leverage to regain a dominant position (I did lots of Judo/Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu). You may be off-balance and get knocked over. These are not unfathomable scenarios, but implications of the technique you are describing.
There are two assailents. One in front to distract you, one at your six. This is not unfathomable, it is actually a very realistic scenario. Maybe unlikely in your circumstances, but if your circumstances will never present a lethal threat on your life, you have no reason to carry a gun in the first place. Never is categorically different from statistically rare. There are 15,000 murders in the U.S. per year and 3 million people. That is a 1/2 of a percent chance you will be murdered, but not a Never. I don't have the stats for assault and battery off the top of my head, but I am sure they are much higher. Again, it is a possibility even if it not a Never.
We all know that the situation in which you would be required to use force is going to be a rare one, and it is irresponsible to assume you will be able to control all the factors of a defensive situation. While situational awareness is the first and best defense against crime, if it was the only necessary defense, we wouldn't need to carry defensive weapons.
I am not trying pulling off ad hominems, I am merely stating some very big gaps in your strategy that should be addressed. I would prefer you not use red herrings like snipers 300 yards away. That is not a realistic defensive scenario, and as has been pointed out, there is little you can do to mitigate that.
What statistics do show though is that defensive situations happen at very short distances. Most LEO's are trained that 15 feet is the lethal range of a bladed weapon, or any other weapon. Most defensive situations where lethal force would be justified will happen under 15 feet. I can close 7 yards in less than a second, when I played football, I could run 40 yards in in under 5 seconds. It is not unreasonable that an aggressor can close the distance on you in under one second. An old-west showdown in an empty street is not a likely scenario. A quick and violent attack, if you are going to be attacked is a much more likely scenario.
And should he close the distance in under one second, from a range of under 15 feet (which is generous if we assume the full 15), you may very well need your free hand to buy you space to draw and to provide a make-shift defense against edged or blunt attacks. You may also require the free hand to make an attempt to re-direct a firearm pointed at you. Again, not likely, but in preparing for only the best case scenario which is the least likely to occur - and impairing yourself in most likely scenarios, your firearm is of very little utility to you. You would probably be better off taking boxing and jiu-jitsu. In fact, it might be helpful to do such to realize how quickly violence can happen. In a jiu-jitsu match, it can take all of one second for someone a few feet away from you to clinch you. And you have given him complete control of you by having both hands behind your back.
I have never been to Thunderranch and I am not a mall cop. I have competed in contact sports, and I have completed the very basic Air Force M9 CBT. The M9/92FS was designed with safety features in mind so that it could be carried safely with one in the chamber.
All I want is a reasonable counter-argument to the arguments I have posted. There is nothing wrong with Condition 3 and an Israeli draw. But even an Israeli draw is a different animal from slowly drawing from behind your back, while evaluating a situation that may unfold rapidly.
And again, if DA is your concern, why not go to a SAO gun with safeties?
I am just saying, it doesn't seem to hold up well against the arguments presented.
"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."
It is very difficult to rack the slide with your hands behind your back. If you can do it 100/100 times with no errors in a smooth and efficient manner, please teach me your technique. You must have amazing coordination and many hours to devote bringing this action into muscle memory.
"But if he pulls a knife and rushes you, Bam"
you did not get the slide far enough back to clear the round into the chamber. No Bam.
You did not disengage the safetY. No Bam.
You inadvertently engaged the safety. No Bam.
The assailent was already on you by the time your hands were behind your back. Both hands are tied up in an extremely disadvantageous position - you have very little leverage to regain a dominant position (I did lots of Judo/Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu). You may be off-balance and get knocked over. These are not unfathomable scenarios, but implications of the technique you are describing.
There are two assailents. One in front to distract you, one at your six. This is not unfathomable, it is actually a very realistic scenario. Maybe unlikely in your circumstances, but if your circumstances will never present a lethal threat on your life, you have no reason to carry a gun in the first place. Never is categorically different from statistically rare. There are 15,000 murders in the U.S. per year and 3 million people. That is a 1/2 of a percent chance you will be murdered, but not a Never. I don't have the stats for assault and battery off the top of my head, but I am sure they are much higher. Again, it is a possibility even if it not a Never.
We all know that the situation in which you would be required to use force is going to be a rare one, and it is irresponsible to assume you will be able to control all the factors of a defensive situation. While situational awareness is the first and best defense against crime, if it was the only necessary defense, we wouldn't need to carry defensive weapons.
I am not trying pulling off ad hominems, I am merely stating some very big gaps in your strategy that should be addressed. I would prefer you not use red herrings like snipers 300 yards away. That is not a realistic defensive scenario, and as has been pointed out, there is little you can do to mitigate that.
What statistics do show though is that defensive situations happen at very short distances. Most LEO's are trained that 15 feet is the lethal range of a bladed weapon, or any other weapon. Most defensive situations where lethal force would be justified will happen under 15 feet. I can close 7 yards in less than a second, when I played football, I could run 40 yards in in under 5 seconds. It is not unreasonable that an aggressor can close the distance on you in under one second. An old-west showdown in an empty street is not a likely scenario. A quick and violent attack, if you are going to be attacked is a much more likely scenario.
And should he close the distance in under one second, from a range of under 15 feet (which is generous if we assume the full 15), you may very well need your free hand to buy you space to draw and to provide a make-shift defense against edged or blunt attacks. You may also require the free hand to make an attempt to re-direct a firearm pointed at you. Again, not likely, but in preparing for only the best case scenario which is the least likely to occur - and impairing yourself in most likely scenarios, your firearm is of very little utility to you. You would probably be better off taking boxing and jiu-jitsu. In fact, it might be helpful to do such to realize how quickly violence can happen. In a jiu-jitsu match, it can take all of one second for someone a few feet away from you to clinch you. And you have given him complete control of you by having both hands behind your back.
I have never been to Thunderranch and I am not a mall cop. I have competed in contact sports, and I have completed the very basic Air Force M9 CBT. The M9/92FS was designed with safety features in mind so that it could be carried safely with one in the chamber.
All I want is a reasonable counter-argument to the arguments I have posted. There is nothing wrong with Condition 3 and an Israeli draw. But even an Israeli draw is a different animal from slowly drawing from behind your back, while evaluating a situation that may unfold rapidly.
And again, if DA is your concern, why not go to a SAO gun with safeties?
Duke of Doubt
member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2008
- Messages
- 2,863
fiddletown: "How would one otherwise learn? How would one know, without foundation, what risks to train for or what skills he needed?"
Years and years of representing, socializing and swapping stories with syndicated armed robbers, commercial burglars, extortionists, traffickers, arsonists, racketeers, gamblers, smugglers and assorted others. Well, what can I say? Eventually cards and pool get a little tired. By the way, that was one part of the "legal thing" dodge. I wanted to think that one over very, very carefully before I spelled it right out for those here who didn't already deduce it.
Years and years of representing, socializing and swapping stories with syndicated armed robbers, commercial burglars, extortionists, traffickers, arsonists, racketeers, gamblers, smugglers and assorted others. Well, what can I say? Eventually cards and pool get a little tired. By the way, that was one part of the "legal thing" dodge. I wanted to think that one over very, very carefully before I spelled it right out for those here who didn't already deduce it.
And David, I can see no legal reasons why one could not post a theory of response. If stating a plan of self-defense against a criminal act containing actus reus and mens rea (criminal action and intent) is in anyway incriminating, then there is no point in CCW classes; since a large portion of the class is on how to properly and legally defend oneself and the best plans and methods to do so. If a CCW instructor states these things, and even writes them down as part of his course curriculum, and later uses it to defend himself he should have nothing to fear so long as he defended himself in a lawful manner. I don't know about Maine, but in a justified self-defense shooting you cannot be criminally prosecuted in Oklahoma. If anyone has information to the contrary, or supplementary information, please post.
Duke of Doubt
member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2008
- Messages
- 2,863
SHusky57: "Do you have a reason compelling you to think the 92FS has an added level of risk by having a round chambered, with the safety on and the trigger not being pulled?"
Not really. But I didn't say I carried with the safety on. Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't, depending on how I'm carrying.
I practice defensive shooting single action, period. Barring only the most extraordinary situations. If I had a round in the chamber, I'd thumb the hammer back. Racking the slide is only slightly more complicated than that. My first shot with the Beretta 92FS WILL ALWAYS be single action, again, barring the most extraordinary circumstances. That double action trigger is indeed rather too long and heavy -- and even if it wasn't, I'd go for single action if at all possible. And in every defensive shooting situation I contemplate, it is possible.
The negligible safety risk from an accidental discharge is not why I carry without a round in the chamber. It's a consideration, but not my main motivation. I spelled my reasons out way, way, way up in the thread.
Not really. But I didn't say I carried with the safety on. Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't, depending on how I'm carrying.
I practice defensive shooting single action, period. Barring only the most extraordinary situations. If I had a round in the chamber, I'd thumb the hammer back. Racking the slide is only slightly more complicated than that. My first shot with the Beretta 92FS WILL ALWAYS be single action, again, barring the most extraordinary circumstances. That double action trigger is indeed rather too long and heavy -- and even if it wasn't, I'd go for single action if at all possible. And in every defensive shooting situation I contemplate, it is possible.
The negligible safety risk from an accidental discharge is not why I carry without a round in the chamber. It's a consideration, but not my main motivation. I spelled my reasons out way, way, way up in the thread.
Claude Clay
Member
Duke.....i was not aware that there was going to be a quiz . i did sleep at a holiday inn last night and other than lawyer having one more letter than troll i could not discern any difference. so sorry i did not deduce your rather undefined 'no comment'. i have observed that the company one keeps often defines oneself.
Duke of Doubt
member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2008
- Messages
- 2,863
SHusky57: " I don't know about Maine, but in a justified self-defense shooting you cannot be criminally prosecuted in Oklahoma."
Sort of begs the question, doesn't it?
Up here, we don't really know for sure whether it's justified until the jury verdict.
Oh sure, a lot of times the DA will refuse to prosecute or the police will not arrest, if it's totally obvious. But few such cases are.
Sort of begs the question, doesn't it?
Up here, we don't really know for sure whether it's justified until the jury verdict.
Oh sure, a lot of times the DA will refuse to prosecute or the police will not arrest, if it's totally obvious. But few such cases are.
David E
Member
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2008
- Messages
- 7,459
This is not how a serious gun-toter does it. (So why am I not surprised?
)Pick a way, any way and BE CONSISTENT
Why? Because drawing your gun to defend your life is a poor time to be wondering, "is the safety on? off? Is the gun chambered? Not?"
.
Duke of Doubt
member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2008
- Messages
- 2,863
Claude: " i have observed that the company one keeps often defines oneself."
And I'd stack my friends up against yours any day of the week, pal.
And I'd stack my friends up against yours any day of the week, pal.
Duke of Doubt
member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2008
- Messages
- 2,863
David E: "This is not how a serious gun-toter does it. Pick a way, any way and BE CONSISTENT Why? Because drawing your gun to defend your life is a poor time to be wondering, "is the safety on? off? Is the gun chambered? Not?""
Well, I don't consider myself a particularly serious gun toter. I'm almost 40 years old, and the times I've drawn my gun defensively account for a tiny fraction of my time on earth. They were not even, in fact, those times of greatest peril to my own life.
When you rack the slide of a Beretta 92FS to chamber a round, it's pretty obvious whether the safety is still down. If it is, the hammer falls (on a Beretta 92FS). It is then necessary to thumb cock it. Not the end of the world, for someone with presence of mind, but not so great, as this wastes another one-half of one of those precious seconds. So I would suppose looking at the gun as you rack the slide is a pretty good idea, if possible.
Incidentally, as you suggest, and as discussed above, the only way to know 100% that a round is chambered is to rack the slide. Another poster had to concede his mother in law once had unloaded his gun and reholstered it without his knowledge. That stuff happens.
Well, I don't consider myself a particularly serious gun toter. I'm almost 40 years old, and the times I've drawn my gun defensively account for a tiny fraction of my time on earth. They were not even, in fact, those times of greatest peril to my own life.
When you rack the slide of a Beretta 92FS to chamber a round, it's pretty obvious whether the safety is still down. If it is, the hammer falls (on a Beretta 92FS). It is then necessary to thumb cock it. Not the end of the world, for someone with presence of mind, but not so great, as this wastes another one-half of one of those precious seconds. So I would suppose looking at the gun as you rack the slide is a pretty good idea, if possible.
Incidentally, as you suggest, and as discussed above, the only way to know 100% that a round is chambered is to rack the slide. Another poster had to concede his mother in law once had unloaded his gun and reholstered it without his knowledge. That stuff happens.
Claude Clay
Member
Duke--i am not your 'pal'
and of all near me that have followed this michagas not a one would think of a carrying a s/a without a round chambered. if murphy doesn't get you, darwin will. you do not need from me or anyone to tell you to do what you want. perhaps you will even survive yourself since as you have said it will work in ""every defensive shooting situation I contemplate, it is possible"" and of course you have the ability to contemplate all possibilities
.
quote Duke-
""Well, I don't consider myself a particularly serious gun toter.""
that goes a long way towards explaining much of what you have espoused.
and of all near me that have followed this michagas not a one would think of a carrying a s/a without a round chambered. if murphy doesn't get you, darwin will. you do not need from me or anyone to tell you to do what you want. perhaps you will even survive yourself since as you have said it will work in ""every defensive shooting situation I contemplate, it is possible"" and of course you have the ability to contemplate all possibilities
.
quote Duke-
""Well, I don't consider myself a particularly serious gun toter.""
that goes a long way towards explaining much of what you have espoused.
Duke of Doubt
member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2008
- Messages
- 2,863
Claude: "that goes a long way towards explaining much of what you have espoused."
And the fact that a couple of guys like you and David E consider yourself "serious gun toters" and discount opinions regarding criminal threats offered by one who deals professionally and socially on an almost daily basis with violent criminals is utterly uproarious.
And the fact that a couple of guys like you and David E consider yourself "serious gun toters" and discount opinions regarding criminal threats offered by one who deals professionally and socially on an almost daily basis with violent criminals is utterly uproarious.
It doesn't make any sense to me, Duke, how you feel like simultaneously cocking the hammer back and aligning the sights, then pulling the shorter SA trigger pull, is simpler than aligning the sights and pulling DA. Or even pulling up fast and pulling the trigger at the same time.
Safety issues aside, have you tested yourself extensively - not comparing just SA vs DA accuracy, but SA+cock vs DA w/o cock accuracy and speed? I can't imagine you are more efficient in reality having to cock the hammer first. The DA trigger can't be THAT bad.
Claude Clay
Member
short on tact and long on pomposity
you deal with them after they have been caught and contained---try it before and see how you do.
you deal with them after they have been caught and contained---try it before and see how you do.
Duke of Doubt
member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2008
- Messages
- 2,863
Claude: "you deal with them after they have been caught and contained"
Nuh-uh.
Nuh-uh.
Duke of Doubt
member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2008
- Messages
- 2,863
conwict: "It doesn't make any sense to me, Duke, how you feel like simultaneously cocking the hammer back and aligning the sights, then pulling the shorter SA trigger pull, is simpler than aligning the sights and pulling DA. Or even pulling up fast and pulling the trigger at the same time. Safety issues aside, have you tested yourself extensively - not comparing just SA vs DA accuracy, but SA+cock vs DA w/o cock accuracy and speed? I can't imagine you are more efficient in reality having to cock the hammer first. The DA trigger can't be THAT bad."
A reasonable question. Again, my analysis, for my situation, suggests I will have enough time. I have before. Given enough time, why not rack the slide, giving myself 100% certitude that the chamber is loaded, and a single action first shot? Yes, I have practiced DA a lot. Yes, it is possible to get pretty good at it. But never quite as good as SA.
A reasonable question. Again, my analysis, for my situation, suggests I will have enough time. I have before. Given enough time, why not rack the slide, giving myself 100% certitude that the chamber is loaded, and a single action first shot? Yes, I have practiced DA a lot. Yes, it is possible to get pretty good at it. But never quite as good as SA.
Swell -- barroom bull sessions with your local petty criminals -- that's alright then. Why didn't you say so in the first place?Duke of Doubt said:
Look this is getting ridiculous. If for whatever reasons you have concluded that you are satisfied carrying as you do, fine. Just leave it as that.
But if you're trying to justify your mode of carry, why bother? You don't need to justify yourself. But you will not convince me that your way is the right way.
Duke of Doubt
member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2008
- Messages
- 2,863
fiddletown: "Swell -- barroom bull sessions with your local petty criminals -- that's alright then. Why didn't you say so in the first place?"
Because it wasn't the whole story, by a long shot. I recited that line in response to your question as to how else one possibly could learn about possible criminal threats, other than at a place like Gunsite.
fiddletown: "You don't need to justify yourself. But you will not convince me that your way is the right way."
Not really trying to. This thread went on and on, with my occasional participation, because a few posters kept insisting that "serious gun toters" and the like only carry a certain way, and that anyone carrying different was doing it wrong, since someone they once paid money to tell them what they wanted to hear, said so.
Because it wasn't the whole story, by a long shot. I recited that line in response to your question as to how else one possibly could learn about possible criminal threats, other than at a place like Gunsite.
fiddletown: "You don't need to justify yourself. But you will not convince me that your way is the right way."
Not really trying to. This thread went on and on, with my occasional participation, because a few posters kept insisting that "serious gun toters" and the like only carry a certain way, and that anyone carrying different was doing it wrong, since someone they once paid money to tell them what they wanted to hear, said so.
I respect your logic, but I differ as far as strategy. I would guess that if you really have time to rack the slide or cock the gun, you probably have time to evade.
Think of it this way: the probability that you have time to rack the slide goes down if your first priority (post-threat) is evasion. While racking the slide is an attractive option if you feel you might have time, it may be blinding you to a better, overall safer and more effective order of operations.
Also, I believe you need to factor into your safety calculations (or estimations really) two things: one, is the probability that your gun will fail to feed (when you're under stress, increasing likelihood of error) higher or lower than the probability that you would forget to chamber a round, previously? Second, is it safer (in terms of not shooting yourself or having a negligent discharge) to be manipulating your gun with two moving hands (racking the slide) under stress than it is to be carrying it with one in the chamber? For me on the first question I feel definitely yes. The second question in and of itself is probably a "no" because the likelihood of an armed encounter is already maybe lower than the likelihood of an AD, but could factor into your overall decision.
Think of it this way: the probability that you have time to rack the slide goes down if your first priority (post-threat) is evasion. While racking the slide is an attractive option if you feel you might have time, it may be blinding you to a better, overall safer and more effective order of operations.
Also, I believe you need to factor into your safety calculations (or estimations really) two things: one, is the probability that your gun will fail to feed (when you're under stress, increasing likelihood of error) higher or lower than the probability that you would forget to chamber a round, previously? Second, is it safer (in terms of not shooting yourself or having a negligent discharge) to be manipulating your gun with two moving hands (racking the slide) under stress than it is to be carrying it with one in the chamber? For me on the first question I feel definitely yes. The second question in and of itself is probably a "no" because the likelihood of an armed encounter is already maybe lower than the likelihood of an AD, but could factor into your overall decision.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked