CCW: Keep one in the pipe?

[David Armstrong]

Yes, you have a point there, but you're being overly literal. What I was getting at is that we should train to be as fast as we can.

Then we should never carry IWB, we should never use less than full-size guns, etc. I disagree. I think we should train to be able to solve our problems. Being fast is only one part of that and ignores lots of other issues that can be just as important, maybe more so.

You can't equate the safety with racking the slide. The safety can be clicked off in the same motion with the draw. Racking the slide, without some special holster, cannot.

Sure I can. Racking the slide can be and should be a part of the draw, just like flipping the safety. If you are using the 5-step draw it is part of Step 4, if you are using the 4-step draw it is part of Step 3.

I'm actually surprised to see you write this:Shooting from C3 faster than C1? No, not even from an expert.

Again, I tend to write based on actual research and testing. If you have something else other than opinion I'll be glad to look at it. Over the years I've had the chance to take literally hundreds of people with varying levels of skill to the range and put them on a timer doing various things. You mentioned taking off a safety above. It is not uncommon to find folks with little or no experience having far more trouble getting the safety off than racking the slide, for instance.

I don't own my own range, but I am an instructor and have trained hundreds of shooters and witnessed thousands more. I haven't timed shooters shooting from C3, but I just don't believe that it's faster. I'd be willing to test that. I'll wager lunch. We could get a bunch of "average" shooters and time them from both C1 and C3. I bet that they'll be faster from C1.

Never said otherwise. What was said was that it is not uncommon for C3 to be faster than C1 for average shooters.

It's just hard to believe that more motion can be faster than less.

Often it is not how much motion there is, it is how that motion is used.

I was standing in a gun store talking with a young salesman. He had never met me before and certainly had never seen me shoot. He told me that he could present from concealment and get two shots on target before I could get two shots on target starting from the ready. I told him that I'd take that bet and I was willing to put $500 on the line. Not surprisingly he was busy and couldn't get to the range.

That is an old shooters trick. I can pull it off on people about half the time, maybe a bit more. It's all about getting inside their OODA loop.

I'm sure that Bob Munden, may he rest in peace, could have done it, but not that guy. This conversation is much like that. I'm completely serious. Let's get some guys/gals, go to the range and see which way they can do it faster.

As I said, I've already done that. But as mentioned this is part of the problem, the singular and I feel misguided focus on speed only, and in particular speed only as it relates to C1 vs C3 and none of the other things that impact speed.

 

[Rastoff]

Sorry, I'm just not buying that the average shooter is faster from C3 than C1. I've seen far too many shooters demonstrate the exact opposite.

 

[Smoke]

Since the Israelis are reflexively brought up every time someone mentions carrying with an empty chamber, maybe we should look at why they carry (or carried) with an empty chamber.

When the Israeli Defense Force was orginally formed back in the 40s, they were armed with whatever weapons they, as a nation, could quickly acquire. This meant that their pistols were a mish-mash of different designs. Some single action, some double action, some with safeties, some without. Many were not drop safe. Many did not have holsters.

They needed one simple method to train a large number of people, many of them inexpereinced in the use of arms, regardless of what weapon they had. The result was to carry with the chamber empty and rack on the draw. This method:

1) works regardless of the gun's design (SA, DA, safety, no safety)
2) prevents a non-drop-safe gun from going off if dropped (a real possibility when you just stick it in your waistband because you don't have a holster)
3) avoids the possibility of someone not accustomed to a safety sticking a loaded, cocked, and unlocked single action into their waistband

It is important to note that this method IS A COMPROMISE.

There is no tactical advantage to be gained from carrying this way. In fact there is a tactical disadvantage, because it requires both hands. With a modern firearm, there is no safety advantage to be gained from carrying chamber empty, either. (One possible exception to this is someone trying to shoot you with your own gun, but if you are planning your carry method based on someone stealing your concealed gun from you before you can react, perhaps you should reconsider carrying a gun.)

If you need to use a gun in self defense, you're already behind the curve because:
A) You didn't see the situation coming in time to avoid it.
B) You weren't able to find and take an escape from the situation once it started.
C) You weren't able to control or de-escalate the situation before a gun became your only option.
D) You need a gun RIGHT NOW.
E) Your gun is still in it's holster (because you don't draw before you need it, right?)

Why put yourself at a further disadvantage by having that holstered gun unloaded as well?

You are not a member of the IDF. You are not mandated to carry your gun in a less-than-optimal manner. Why would you choose to handicap yourself this way? Why would you carry in a manner that may require more hands than you'll have available? That takes more time to deploy? That precludes the ability to fire from retention? That requires putting the gun out there in a place that's bad for retention?

The Israelis don't carry chamber empty becasue it's tacti-cool. It was a compromise that gained a bit of needed safety at the cost of tactical advantage. Today, now that they have standardized, modern pistols, many Israelis (like SWAT and special forces units) do carry with a loaded chamber.


Just carry with one in the pipe, already.

 

[venomballistics]

I'm sorry, but that "adjustment" completely changes the concept. That is like saying the the DOA superseded the SA auto, or the Isosceles superseded the Weaver, or that Kydex superseded leather, and so on. It is not an issue of superseding, it is an issue of different alternatives.

from where I was reading, the completely different concept was strongly implied, thus the "adjustment" was intended to highlight these undertones in your statement.

I think you again make an adjustment to the discussion that is not warranted. I don't think anyone says there are no problems with C1 or C3. The issue as I see it is there are advantages and disadvantages to BOTH.

the makarov system is of worthy note if you understand it.
you holster and carry in C3, you do not draw upward, you push the pistol through, which automatically racks the slide and disengages its safety.
end result ... it can be carried without fear of ND like C3 while retaining all the simplicity and efficient movement of C1.
If it were adapted to all our autos, this discussion would have no legs, because it trumps all C1 C3 arguments.
understanding WHY it does, is my point. its the best of both.

I would suggest if you are busy inspecting the BGs bore, C1 or C3 is not of much concern.

agreed ... it would be more of a regret

I'm sorry, but again virtually all the available information just does not reflect that idea. Rarely will a gunfight be decided in fractional second increments. And again, if it does, there are many other things that have as great an impact on that time (or greater) than C1 vs C3.

man ... if we had the time, I'd take ya deer hunting.
I lost count of how many times Ive seen someone cussing at their gun saying it was broke/ jammed/ defective/ fill in the blank, only to have me pick up said rifle tilt it 90 deg to the right, cycle the action to clear .... you guessed it, a perfectly functional arm.
if people fail to properly manipulate a bolt, lever or forearm slide of a firearm under the pressure of just seeing a deer, the potential for such entertainment in a gunfight must be of glorious proportions.

Which is actually a pretty good example. Many, probably most, decline the large caliber and instead select a medium caliber. Why? Because it fits their overall needs better. It might not be the first choice for a gunfight, but we make a selection based on things outside of the immediate gunfight consideration.

don't ignore the Hollywood effect.
many people seem to believe a 9MM can blow up a car as well as an RPG could if ya hit the gas tank.
Reality .. pistol calibers suck ... some less than others, but they all kinda suck. 45 is one of the calibers that sucks less thus it is the cornerstone of my advise. Use it if you can. Or if its close enough to your needs, by all means make it work. but if its far removed from your needs, then make concessions from there.

if they all really and truly understood the limitations of any given caliber, it is my belief they would not concede below the 40 S&W if they could help it

That's all I am suggesting. We all make concessions, we all make decisions based on personal needs and situations. The C1 vs C3 is no different than 1911 vs Glock 17, or IWB appendix vs OWB at 4:30, or polo shirt vs Hawaiian shirt.

you forgot trench coat and 12 ga

 

[David Armstrong]

Sorry, I'm just not buying that the average shooter is faster from C3 than C1. I've seen far too many shooters demonstrate the exact opposite.

As I apparently have to keep repeating, please don't try to attribute things to me that I have not said. I have not said the average shooter is faster from C3 than C1. What I have said is it is not uncommon for C3 to be faster than C1 for average shooters. There is a distinct difference between the two statements.

 

[David Armstrong]

from where I was reading, the completely different concept was strongly implied, thus the "adjustment" was intended to highlight these undertones in your statement.

Again, if I wish to imply something I will do it. Please don't make claims for me. I do not say nor do I imply that C1 has superseded C3.

the makarov system is of worthy note if you understand it. you holster and carry in C3, you do not draw upward, you push the pistol through, which automatically racks the slide and disengages its safety.
end result ... it can be carried without fear of ND like C3 while retaining all the simplicity and efficient movement of C1.
If it were adapted to all our autos, this discussion would have no legs, because it trumps all C1 C3 arguments.
understanding WHY it does, is my point. its the best of both.

I understand the Makarov, I have used the Makarov rather extensively, my wife was a member of the Russian police and is pretty good with the Makarov, I had a Makarov holster that you are talking about. As a FWIW we (U.S.) have developed a few holsters over the year that allowed racking the slide for an auto in the holster as well as developed numerous techniques to do that, usually for the 1911.

man ... if we had the time, I'd take ya deer hunting.
I lost count of how many times Ive seen someone cussing at their gun saying it was broke/ jammed/ defective/ fill in the blank, only to have me pick up said rifle tilt it 90 deg to the right, cycle the action to clear .... you guessed it, a perfectly functional arm.
if people fail to properly manipulate a bolt, lever or forearm slide of a firearm under the pressure of just seeing a deer, the potential for such entertainment in a gunfight must be of glorious proportions.

Been deer hunting quite a bit. And for every "problem with a gun" shooter there are thousands who don't seem to have that problem. That is sort of what we see here. C3 has been used for a long time by a lot of people in a lot of situations without much trouble.

don't ignore the Hollywood effect.
many people seem to believe a 9MM can blow up a car as well as an RPG could if ya hit the gas tank.
Reality .. pistol calibers suck ... some less than others, but they all kinda suck. 45 is one of the calibers that sucks less thus it is the cornerstone of my advise. Use it if you can. Or if its close enough to your needs, by all means make it work. but if its far removed from your needs, then make concessions from there.
if they all really and truly understood the limitations of any given caliber, it is my belief they would not concede below the 40 S&W if they could help it

This seems to be going a bit afield, but the .45 doesn't have much, if any, better record of stopping fights than any of the other major calibers. I gave up the .45 close to 20 years ago as did most of my peers and haven't seen any need to look back. As far as anyone can tell the difference in outcome of a fight due to caliber is negligible among the major fighting calibers.
thanks for your input, you make some good points.

 

[David Armstrong]

from Smoke:
It is important to note that this method IS A COMPROMISE.
There is no tactical advantage to be gained from carrying this way. In fact there is a tactical disadvantage, because it requires both hands.

You started so well, then went down the slippery slope. Of course it is a compromise, as is pretty much everything. But part of understanding the compromise issue is to get out of that "tactical" mindset. There is far more to carrying than getting into gunfights. BTW, there is no tactical disadvantage. The tactical advantages are different, as are the disadvantages. And everybody that carries an auto should know how to run it one-handed.

With a modern firearm, there is no safety advantage to be gained from carrying chamber empty, either.

First, hundreds of organizations and thousands of people disagree with that opinion. Second, sadly, not everyone carries a modern and drop-safe firearm.

You are not a member of the IDF. You are not mandated to carry your gun in a less-than-optimal manner. Why would you choose to handicap yourself this way?

Because it is not less-than-optimal, it is different. C3 is less optimal in some situations, C1 is less optimal in others. Thus the suggestion to figure out what is best for you and your situation. It is not just IDF. It is military and former military all over the world. It is LE and former LE all over the world. It is thousands of well-trained individuals all over the world, many who live, work and fight in places that are far more dangerous than anything most members of this forum will ever see.

The Israelis don't carry chamber empty because it's tacti-cool.

Right. They carry that way because that is what best meets their needs in their particular situation, which is what everyone should do.

 

[johnbeaver]

I don't always carry a semi-auto. But when I do, it is with a round chambered. Stay ready my friends.

 

[Rastoff]

As I apparently have to keep repeating, please don't try to attribute things to me that I have not said. I have not said the average shooter is faster from C3 than C1. What I have said is it is not uncommon for C3 to be faster than C1 for average shooters. There is a distinct difference between the two statements.

Um, OK, then I'll say it differently. I find it hard to believe that anyone would find it "not uncommon" for an average shooter to be faster using C3 than C1 when I've seen so many demonstrate the exact opposite.

Just saying that C3 is faster is ludicrous. Can it be done quickly? Absolutely! However, the guy that can do it quickly can do C1 faster. This is not speculation. It's a simple fact.

So, to continue this stercoraceous discussion, please tell us what the advantage of C3 is? There is not a single gun I own that will fire unless the operator fires it. So, how is keeping the chamber empty advantageous?

 

[David Armstrong]

Um, OK, then I'll say it differently. I find it hard to believe that anyone would find it "not uncommon" for an average shooter to be faster using C3 than C1 when I've seen so many demonstrate the exact opposite.

Just saying that C3 is faster is ludicrous. Can it be done quickly? Absolutely! However, the guy that can do it quickly can do C1 faster. This is not speculation. It's a simple fact.

So, to continue this stercoraceous discussion, please tell us what the advantage of C3 is? There is not a single gun I own that will fire unless the operator fires it. So, how is keeping the chamber empty advantageous?

Just out of curiosity, did you even go read the sight that I listed as giving a good review of this stuff??
And also out of curiosity, before we continue this, would you mind sharing with us your training background and experience with C3? I know what mine is, and my training and experience seems to contradict a lot of the statements you toss out about what can and can't be done with C3.

 

[jlrhiner]

Uhhh,

If you don't feel competent enough to carry your semi auto handgun with one in the chamber, buy a revolver. That's like driving a 'vette and taking two plug wires off. Pointless and dangerous.

what I said.

 

[Rastoff]

Yes, I went to the site. Does this mean you're not going to answer my question?

Actually, I don't care. What I've said stands on its own. If you don't accept it, that's OK with me.

 

[handejector]

Are you guys saying a gun can be carried with an empty chamber?
hmmmm............
Over 5 decades of gun handling and I did not know that.
I feel so stupid.

But it does seem like it could cause cause an accidental CLICK!

BTW, for the speed freaks out there, well-trained C3 shooters are expected to draw, rack, and get a shot off in about 1 second. Lots of experimentation has shown that a good estimate is that it might add .2 seconds to a presentation for the average shooter.

True. I've seen it done.
I've also seen times when I wanted a gun in my hand with a round chambered, but did not want other people to know that. I've also seen times when I wanted a gun in my hand with a round chambered and did not want other people to even know I was there, much less my location.
I'm certain the sound of racking would have given up all that info I did not want them to have.

I don't see the need for any argument, though.
Carry it like you want to.
I promise I will.

 

[Kanewpadle]

I don't see the need for an argument either. Everybody (almost everybody) with any common sense knows that you should carry with one in the chamber. I stated why earlier in this thread.

Common sense folks. Not the words or wisdom of a few self appointed experts who think differently. For every so called expert there are three times as many true experts who say and teach condition one carry. I WONDER WHY?!

 

[Capt.Jim]

Claiming you are safe, because, "There is not a single gun you own that will fire unless the operator fires it", is like saying you'll never involve in a car accident because "there is not a single vehicle out there will hit another car unless drivers crash it".

It is a technically correct but practically wrong statement.
Because unfortunately humans are involved in the use of the guns and humans do millions of different things while they carrying.
Also, humans tend to do mistakes now and then...
Those of you claiming that the safety is between the ears of a human being I say "so a few million other things too"...

Had you ever fell down while walking, cut yourself while peeling a fruit, poke yourself with a sharp object, involved in a fender bender, slipped on ice, belly flopped while diving....
You get the point...
You are prone to make mistakes...

World is full of ND incidents for hundreds of different reasons and many of them caused by professionals or experienced gun owners.
Could all ND be prevented? Sure!
By only using the tool between the ears? Not so sure about that!
If we could, there will not be a phenomenon known as ND!

But, I can guarantee you 100% that there is one never changing condition which was met at every ND case and it is "there was a round in the chamber".

No matter what you do there won't be a ND if there's only air in the pipe!

Like I mentioned before in some other posts, as a Navy sniper I served all over the Middle East as an officer of NATO forces. During peace times I was mostly in charge of the U.S. military base security operations.

Did you know that 99% of those security forces standing outside the front gates of the military bases "does not keep one in the pipe" ?
Even some of the very sensitive locations in that part of the world, it is a standard practice.

Do you know the main reason, why that method is being used by highly trained military security forces?
Answer: Numerous ND incidents!

Again, I am not advocating carrying a semi-auto handgun with an empty chamber must be everyone's choice...

But, also I am not advocating those who carry with an empty chamber shouldn't own a gun either.

Just pointing out to those of you gunslingers who is believing that the fractional time advantage you'll gain because of "carrying one in the pipe" is truly will NOT increase your chances as much as you think in many, many situations.

99.9% of the civilian self defense situations doesn't end up with the person who had the 1/10 of a second advantage end up being alive.

In some situations it may even work against you...

Unfortunately, so often I am witnessing a very big misunderstanding between the CCW community members.
I am seeing so many comments like, "If I have to draw my gun I am emptying my magazine on BG"...

Well, hold on to your horses cowboys...

"If you have to draw, be ready to shoot" is mostly advocated by NRA instructors who try to emphasize the "drawing" should be your last resort by saying that...

I don't know if they do that for political correctness or not to get sued or whatever else reasons...But they discourage the "draw" until it hits the fan!

During my urban warfare training "DRAW" what we called is a "SILENT FIRE" which meant the "gun's active effectiveness is already in action".

This happens when the person confronting you suddenly find themselves staring at the barrel of your gun.

9 out of 10 times bad situations are ended by this action alone.

If your "safety between your ears" tells you to go bang, bang, every time right after you draw your gun, basically you are conditioning yourself to "NOT TO EVALUATE" the situation after that point...
What if the BG dropped the knife?
What if he turned around to run away?
If you condition yourself to pull the trigger after every time you draw during practice, you will be firing without realizing what the heck happened during that stressful moment.

Trust me, after that first noisy bang everything will slow down and you'll find yourself staring at your smoking barrel wondering what happened while your ears are still ringing.

Again this doesn't mean you'll be better off with an empty chamber in every situation...
So, does this mean you should not carry one in the pipe ever?
Of course not...
If you feel comfortable enough to trust yourself that you'll not make a mistake ever while you're carrying a gun, go ahead!
Or simply if you think you'll accept to take that risk it is still ok for you to carry one in the pipe.

The whole point of this controversial subject's discussion is, that there is no ONE single correct method of carrying.
Especially for civilians who do not have the obligation to chase down after the BGs and involve in dangerous situations like LEOs do on a daily basis.

You evaluate the risks and decide how do you want to carry.

 

[Rastoff]

Cpt. Jim,
I agree that the common denominator in all NDs is the human. In relation to my comment, I still stand by it.

The main concern about carrying with one in the chamber is that it will fire. I submit that with every modern firearm it will not, cannot, fire while in the holster. Which is where it should stay until defense is necessary. I'll go even further and say that the series of events necessary for the gun to fire even when outside the holster is so unlikely as to be impossible as well.

It's only when a person is handling the gun that it will go off. Thus, even though it takes an extra step, C3 is not protection against such.

 

[Capt.Jim]

Cpt. Jim,
I agree that the common denominator in all NDs is the human. In relation to my comment, I still stand by it.

The main concern about carrying with one in the chamber is that it will fire. I submit that with every modern firearm it will not, cannot, fire while in the holster. Which is where it should stay until defense is necessary. I'll go even further and say that the series of events necessary for the gun to fire even when outside the holster is so unlikely as to be impossible as well.

It's only when a person is handling the gun that it will go off. Thus, even though it takes an extra step, C3 is not protection against such.

I agree with you 100%.

The whole point of this debate is NOT how a gun should be carried by a CCW...

There is no argument that the carrying HOT is the recommended way to go.
BUT the whole whoopla is about the questions of:

- Does carrying with an empty chamber defeats the whole purpose of carrying at all situations like some people claim ?
-Does people carry with an empty chamber rather leave their guns at home locked up in a safe?

There we get a discussion. Not an angry or rude argument but just an opinionated discussion between intelligent and respectful people who are CCW.

I am NO WAY one claimed experts.
I am just experienced in certain situations I involved directly and I simply express my opinion from what I read or heard in the news regarding CCW incidents.

All I am saying is that, carrying a gun with a loaded chamber or empty chamber as a CCW involves some risks.
People choose which risk they'd like to take and determine their type of gun and their style to carry.

There is no one single way of correct method of carrying.
There are different methods of carrying.

In my humble opinion some people confusing the "recommended way of carrying" with the "correct way of carrying".
That's all...

 

[bluegrassarms]

Capt Jim --

The reason NRA and other instructors say to leave the gun holstered until you are ready to pull the trigger is in part a safety thing and in part a legal thing, but not just for their liability but for the carrier.

First of course is that if the gun is pulled there's always the chance for a discharge, which goes to your well made comments. But mostly it has to do with state laws on carry. In many states a person can be charged with a crime for pulling their concealed weapon and/or pointing it at someone after doing so (brandishing, endangerment, terroristic threatening), so you train people to not pull their weapon unless you're at the "great bodily harm" stage of the confrontation.

So yes it's largely a legal thing, but not so much for civil liability as to avoid criminal prosecution.

 

[Smoke]

First, hundreds of organizations and thousands of people disagree with that opinion.

My problem with this statement is that you keep making it and others like it with no supporting documentation.

Care to provide some?

 

[Xtasy]

I feel like this is an endless discussion. Its kinda the same discussion about escalation of force. While out of my experience racking a firearm with a round chambered deescalates many situations without that somebody gets shot other people disagree because that would be a wasted round which could have saved your life.
While I never had to point a firearm at anybody here in the U.S , it did work in Afghanistan pretty well