Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Conceal & Open Carry' started by pook, Jan 5, 2012.
You missed the post I left for you lol
Reinforcing your point to keep finger off the trigger.
If you aren't ready to carry with a round chambered you aren't ready to carry the gun out of the house ANYWHERE except to a range to get more training.
The OP reminded me of those old western shows we watched as kids, where the young man wants to show the world he is a MAN by strapping on a six gun or two. Usually, without enough training and/or judgement to prevent getting himself killed.
Other than the OP, the posts I found the most disconcerting are the ones that convinced themselves that they should carry in different conditions, under different circumstances. It seemed that all of those posts were by military and LEO users.
After training Air Force Pilots for 7 years, and firearms students for almost 20 years, I can guarantee you that you better practice your emergency procedures the same way EVERY time, if you intend to survive an emergency. Having multiple "conditions" of carry to choose from, in an emergency situation, will lead to confusion, delayed response time, and ultimately, failure.
A concealed carry firearm serves a very different purpose than a military sidearm, or an LEO sidearm. It is a civilian's "life insurance" for when a Bad Guy presses the issue too far, and lethal force is required to respond, INSTANTLY. If you have not sufficiently trained to handle THAT situation, then you are gambling with your life, that a less time sensitive situation will be the only one that presents itself, i.e. you will have time to rack the slide, because you are so aware it's coming.
As many already said, you can carry any way you want. It's your decision. It's your life.
Just remember: There is no stronger penalty for lack of training, lack of preparation, carelessness, or stupidity, than death.
EDIT: Just to be perfectly clear on this issue: I carry all my CCW guns CHAMBERED, all the time they are "in use." So does my wife. I teach all of my CCW students to do the same. If you don't "feel comfortable" carrying with a round chambered, you need more practice and training. An unloaded gun is worthless for saving your life in an emergency situation.
"INSTANTLY" being the operative focus.
What would happen to the Reverend's time if he had to rack the slide?
(By the way, that's just a rhetorical question. We all know what would happen.)
"Get more training" is the typical gun forum response to anyone that brings up C3 carry and various examples of reactive extreme close-quarter scenario are usually trotted out to illustrate why empty-chamber is so undesirable, but very few "gun guys train at all in any type of realistic extreme close-quarter shooting or force-on-force training let alone could be considered well trained in that area. I would put my money on the guy carrying C3 that has a relatively extensive ECQ background being more likely to get a positive resolution in most real world defense encounters compared with a guy with no such training carrying hot.
Doesn't a "guy carrying C3 that has a relatively extensive ECQ background" mean that he 'got more training'?
And, wouldn't "a guy with no such training" be slow regardless of how he carried?
Comparing 'apples to apples', I don't understand how 'the same person' can respond as quickly to a threat if the slide must be racked.
To me, it's just that simple.
Well, I think the implication that's usually being made is that if the individual carrying C3 would get more training, they would choose to carry hot. That's not always true and I've known quite a few highly skilled and well-trained people who choose to carry with an an empty chamber. While its not my choice or even my recommendation, I don't consider carrying with an empty chamber to be equivelant to toting a rock as some make it out to be. And not all training is equivelant. Very few people train in integrated extreme close-quarter shooting skills and very few places even teach it, but I think those skills are likely to be more useful to a civilian than traditional static range shooting.
Agreed... "carrying with an empty chamber" is not equivalent to "toting a rock"... it's just slower... and, when fractions of a second matter, faster is better.
Agreed... "traditional static range shooting" does not prepare one for 'close-quarter threats'... proper training and practice does.
I personally don't think a trained individual such as you describe would carry on an empty chamber. They would realize from their training it isn't a good idea.
I just received a video yesterday that I wish I could figure out how to share or upload here. It is of a police shooting and a prime example of why carrying on an empty chamber is 100% TACTICALLY a horrible decision. Super close quarters and the perp pulls a gun out of his jacket pocket. The cop quickly puts up his non draw hand blocking the barrel on the perps gun pushing it down toward the ground. He simultaneously draws his duty weapon with the other and puts 4 rounds into the perp. Perp never even gets a shot off. How would have carrying on an empty chamber worked out for him? Would have loved to see him rack one in and be anywhere near as fast.
Agree. I don't carry empty-chamber and wouldn't recommend it at all, but to each his own. If the only way I could convince my wife (or whoever) to carry a gun was if they did it chamber-empty, I'd rather have her carry condition three than not carrying. That said, absolutely not gonna do it myself; unless my only gun was a Jennings or Raven or something. No way I'm carrying one of those chamber-loaded.
This is one of those many debates that has raged on for decades. I remember in the 70's or maybe 80's, there was a vertical shoulder holster that looked a lot like a bianchi x19, that was intended and marketed as a faster way to get your 1911 in the fight if you carried condition three. The bottom (muzzle end) was flat, with a cutout in the bottom big enough for the barrel to go thru. When you grabbed the gun, you first shoved down on it and then pulled it out, racking & cocking it as part of the draw stroke. Don't recall the name or brand and haven't seen it advertised in at least 30 years, so hopefully it's long gone. Seemed like a VERY bad idea, with all kinds of ways to bind or jam things up during the draw stroke. My point is just that this debate has gone on for decades and will probably continue to do so. No way I'm carrying condition three, but if someone wants to, more power to them I guess.
I'm in 100% agreement that carrying hot is the best way to go, but some people are simply going to carry with an empty chamber no matter what. I think they can probably be fairly well prepared for the majority of self-defense situations they would likely face, but they have to understand the limitations of C3 and try to mitigate them as much as possible and I'm of the opinion that can be accomplished relatively well.
Consider the following video. She performs better with having the gun chambered, but she is stabbed in both scenarios. I don't think a mutual slaying or getting stabbed slightly fewer times is a good trade-off. In reactive close-quarter encounters(which are often pointed to as a reason why carrying with an empty chamber is such a disadvantage), you generally need some type of unarmed skills and/or utilize some type of movement/footwork to effectively deal with the initial attack and access your weapon and if you posses those skills and apply them properly, you'll often gain the opportunity to be able to charge your weapon. You'll generally learn those skills primarily in a Combatives or reality-based martial arts course and pressure-test it with sim or airsoft guns.
Most gun-centric folks don't ever get involved in that type of training and limit themselves to static range practice or only taking traditional live-fire defensive shooting classes, which I think are actually of limited usefulness when it comes to the types of defense scenarios an armed civilian will likely encounter and why I assert that a guy carrying C3 with ECQ skills is probably better prepared for most civilian self-defense situations than the guy carrying C1 who has only taken traditional defensive shooting courses when comparing individuals of equivelant athleticism and natural physical ability.
The IST Method:
Not a fan. The Israelis incorporate the IST into their self defense martial arts system. Having an empty chamber only needlessly handicaps you when you need every advantage you can get in a deadly situation.
People argue that the location of your holstered gun or even having a thumbreak can delay you enough to get killed. I think those arguments are trivial as compared to carrying with an empty chamber.
Let's say that a person can train enough to be really fast and proficient in employing IST, isn't that training and time that could be better served developing other skills?
Some won't carry with a cartridge chambered.
Personally, rather than 'poo-poo' their concerns, I'd much rather that they carry with an empty chamber than not at all.
That said, it's very easy to test 'the best way' for any individual to carry.
Simply time yourself to 'first shot'.
At self defense distances, the bullet flight time is only about 0.03 seconds, giving the person who presses their trigger first a tremendous advantage.
Many shooters can present their pistol and fire their first shot in well under 1 second.
So, how do you compare?
And, how does your carry style affect your time?
Find out... time yourself with as many different pistols, carry conditions, carry styles, carry locations, et cetera, as you wish, and find out what is fastest (with combat accuracy) for you.
Because... 'time to first shot' really does matter.
Gonna have to try this
So 1 minute isn’t good?
it is for the bad guy!!