CCW: Keep one in the pipe?

[forrestinmathews]

Capt. Jim is right. There are arrogant cops out there that have shot themselves because they are the only ones properly trained to han'l dis Glock 40! Oh well, I still think people are fools, morons, ignoramuses, dopes, idiots, buffoons, blowhards, tacticool Tommy's, stupid, arrogant, and down right dumb if they make an "informed" decision to carry without a round in the chamber. You're never as good as you think you are, gunfights are unannounced, and good guys get shot. Do us all a favor empty pipers leave it at home in the safe next to your common sense.

Well that oughta rile them up!

In case it didn't: J frames are puny wussy guns, 1911's are horribly designed, and .25 ACP is my favorite defensive round.

 

[Shorty 45 MK2]

Even highly trained police officers sometimes have negligent discharges.

"Ind. police chief accidentally shoots self at gun shop"

"It got tangled in my clothing," Counceller said of his weapon. "I was wearing a sweatshirt and a fleece jacket. I felt (the gun) [Glock] go in the holster and I pushed it, but it was tangled in the material which caused it to discharge. The bullet went into my leg and then into the floor."

"If anyone says this could never happen to them, they're mistaken," Counceller said. "You have to keep your guard up at all times."

Ind. police chief accidentally shoots self at gun shop

And if you don't have a round in the chamber, you can't have a negligent discharge.

I would not call most police officers "highly trained", especially not him. He has shot himself before in the hand and if you look at this video you'll see he even places his hand up against the muzzle of a handgun. Now I know that when you are checking out a used gun you have to kind of break some the four rules to inspect it, but not like that.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FrJMQupYxaw

I agree that if he had no round in the chamber there would be no ND, but the same could be said for him not having a firearm either.

 

[jlrhiner]

And completely true!

surprise! I liked this one too.

 

[Llando88]

Much thoughtful advice in this thread presented in a humorous way. It's why I really like this forum.

Thank you.

Bottom line: My M&P will be stored, loaded, chambered, in my bedside retention holster. I've decided that for my application having a cover over the trigger when not in use is appropriate.

PS thanks to who posted the 'Tactical Butterscotch' video. Hilarious.

 

[Owly]

I am certainly no SD expert, but I understand both sides of the loaded chamber debate. I refuse to condemn anyone who feels uncomfortable with loaded chamber carry, but for myself, there is always one in the pipe, period. We carry in order to defend ourselves if the need arises. Why not be as prepared as possible?

 

[cmort666]

Bottom line: My M&P will be stored, loaded, chambered, in my bedside retention holster.

I still recommend that you get a one gun safe/security container.

Until you do, or if you choose not to, I recommend that you clear your firearm and practice getting it out of the holster when it's not on your body. It might be harder than you think.

As an alternative, I recommend that you find a way to SECURELY mount a holster (that or another) to the bed, nightstand or whatever heavy item is close enough to give you access to the firearm. That way you have instant access while keeping the trigger covered.

 

[forrestinmathews]

To the fellow that thinks he's going to keep his pistol in a retention holster at the bedside: Please reconsider. The advice to get a gun vault or similar product is sound. I'll wager that you will experience great difficulty getting the gun out of the holster. Realize that the retention holster was designed for on body carry and to stay indexed to the user via a belt. By employing it off body it will essentially treat you as a gun grabber because you aren't reaching the same way every time and do what it does best...retain. I think you're asking for trouble. Try mounting a regular holster to the bed and seeing how much trouble it is to reach the gun. Now roll back and forth a few times and see what your orientation to the gun is like. I do believe this is a noble thought not fully completed. Good luck.

For what it's worth I keep my gun in an IWB holster on the nightstand with a flashlight clipped to it. Not a whole lot of retention, but it covers the trigger and keeps gun and light together.

 

[Llando88]

Well, God gave me two ears and one mouth for a reason.

Ok fellas, much appreciate the advice. Will ponder this some more.

Not to get the whole 'one in the pipe' question derailed (I get it, loaded and chambered) but I neglected to mention a key point: my 'bed' is sometimes in our RV (a class B Roadtrek) on the road.

So a typical hand vault or safe is not as practical in an RV as in a house.

As regards the retention holder, I get that now. I picked the Safariland 7377, however it is back ordered till later this month, so I can change that to a simpler selection/design. I just wanted the trigger covered; not having any experience with retention devices, maybe I'll rethink that.

Thanks all; thread has given me a lot to consider.

Rich

 

[cmort666]

Well, God gave me two ears and one mouth for a reason.

Ok fellas, much appreciate the advice. Will ponder this some more.

Not to get the whole 'one in the pipe' question derailed (I get it, loaded and chambered) but I neglected to mention a key point: my 'bed' is sometimes in our RV (a class B Roadtrek) on the road.

So a typical hand vault or safe is not as practical in an RV as in a house.

1. A lot of the small containers, especially those designed for use in automobiles, have cables which allow them to be secured to some object, be it a seat frame or something in an RV.
2. Off the top of my head, I can see it being not that difficult to fabricate something from plywood and other materials which would slip under a mattress, and to which you could secure a holster, of whatever kind, in easy reach.

I suggest you look at vehicle oriented containers, as they are probably your easiest solution.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

One of my CCW shooting buddies (mag-fed-semi-auto) tells me he doesn't carry a round in the chamber. He uses a crotch holster, guess he's nervous he might have a negligent discharge. Ouch!

He says stuff like: "I've been carrying for years, I will always have time to get one in the pipe."

I say: what if you are wounded and can't use two hands? He starts showing me how he can chamber by holding the semi-auto up against his levi's and pushing on the slide.

Anyone else feel like this guy?

If George Zimmerman hadn't had one in the pipe, he'd be dead today, and Trayvon Martin would consider his death just another feather in his gangsta-cred cap.

 

[phantom9]

I'm new to the forum and have been reading a lot of stuff including this topic and I have formed a few opinions here:

1) The ridiculous analogies that are being used to compare C3 to C1 are getting old. I understand that everyone feels their opinion is the better one, but making long-shot analogies mitigates one's argument.

2) I would believe carrying a gun is better than not carrying one at all. Without a doubt--let me repeat: without a single doubt, condition 1 offers the tactical advantage. However, who are we to judge the new kid on the block who is learning to be confident, careful, and responsible by carrying C3. With training and time he may arrive to see that he can be comfortable with C1.

Bottom line, do what suits you but just like with voting for a politician, please understand the arguments on both sides before choosing.

 

[cmort666]

2) I would believe carrying a gun is better than not carrying one at all.

It depends:

1. Are you carrying in a particular way because:
   • You don't want to learn safe firearm handling practices?
   • You don't want to learn safe firearm handling practices with YOUR firearm?
   • You're more afraid of your own gun than of a violent assailant?
2. Are you [through ignorance or fear] carrying in a way that both:
   1. decreases your chances of prevailing in a violent encounter?
   2. increases the chance of a violent assailant ending up with your gun?

While anybody has the right to carry in any way authorized by law, that doesn't mean that they're doing so for a good reason or indeed any real reason.

Most of the justifications I've seen for carrying with an empty chamber are in fact rationalizations for:

• lack of knowledge.
• lack of training.
• lack of serious thought on the subject.
• lack of commitment to survive a violent encounter.

Carry any way that's legal, but do it with your eyes open, both with regard to what happens in the real world, and with regard to your own motivations.

 

[austintexas]

with all the firearms manufactured today that are designed to be carried with one in the pipe and with all the drop tests ETC. there is no reason not to carry a firearm ready to be used. I always carry with one in the chamber.

SWCA 892

 

[phantom9]

It depends:

1. Are you carrying in a particular way because:
   • You don't want to learn safe firearm handling practices?
   • You don't want to learn safe firearm handling practices with YOUR firearm?
   • You're more afraid of your own gun than of a violent assailant?
2. Are you [through ignorance or fear] carrying in a way that both:
   1. decreases your chances of prevailing in a violent encounter?
   2. increases the chance of a violent assailant ending up with your gun?

While anybody has the right to carry in any way authorized by law, that doesn't mean that they're doing so for a good reason or indeed any real reason.

Most of the justifications I've seen for carrying with an empty chamber are in fact rationalizations for:

• lack of knowledge.
• lack of training.
• lack of serious thought on the subject.
• lack of commitment to survive a violent encounter.

Carry any way that's legal, but do it with your eyes open, both with regard to what happens in the real world, and with regard to your own motivations.

You are 100% right and I agree. I was just pointing out one of my beefs with this thread that has been the notion of "carry in condition 1 or you shouldn't be carrying at all." As I said, condition 1 is what I feel to be the most effective way to carry, but that is not something that can be forced on everyone.

 

[Protected One]

I'm new to the forum and have been reading a lot of stuff including this topic and I have formed a few opinions here:

2) I would believe carrying a gun is better than not carrying one at all. Without a doubt--let me repeat: without a single doubt, condition 1 offers the tactical advantage. However, who are we to judge the new kid on the block who is learning to be confident, careful, and responsible by carrying C3. With training and time he may arrive to see that he can be comfortable with C1.

I tend to agree with you, but also hope that he gets to the point of being comfortable with C1 BEFORE a incident requires him to learn its (C3) tactical disadvantage first hand.

 

[Rastoff]

2) I would believe carrying a gun is better than not carrying one at all.

Unless you're carrying in condition Tactical Butterscotch. Then I would argue that the bad guy will just kill you and assemble your gun at his leisure.

 

[phantom9]

Unless you're carrying in condition Tactical Butterscotch. Then I would argue that the bad guy will just kill you and assemble your gun at his leisure.

Saw that video the other day and had a good laugh. Butterscotch is definitely (not) at the top of my list for concealed carry methods.

 

[NCavi8tor]

If you can't or won't carry in C1 then please don't carry at all because I don't want a BG to take your weapon and after killing you, hurt other innocent people thus giving the antis more ammunition!!

NC

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[cmort666]

In most of the cases I've heard of where a citizen DIDN'T prevail against a violent assailant, one or more of the following were true:

• The victim's firearm wasn't in a state in which it could be immediately deployed to protect life and limb.
• The victim didn't act quickly and decisively, instead trying to "negotiate" with the assailant or "demonstrate" with the firearm.
• The victim wasn't as determined to prevail as the assailant was.

A deadly force encounter is serious business. You likely won't get a second chance to do what needs to be done if you don't do it out the gate.

 

[Capt.Jim]

And completely true.

If you're more afraid of a negligent discharge than of a violent attack, your fear is not of an assailant; it's of your means of defense from an attack by that assailant... or your own abilities or lack thereof.

You don't see me demanding legislation REQUIRING people to have a round in the chamber when the firearm is being maintained for self-defense.

But at the same time, you don't (and won't) see me pandering to the folly of giving somebody who's just put you in immediate and credible fear of death or great bodily harm an edge in an encounter in which there's "no second place winner".

If you want to give a violent assailant a leg up in his attack on you, you have the right to do so. That in no way negates my right to characterize that as foolish.

Again, that is NOT the issue here...
That is NOT what we even discussing here. NOT even close!

It seems that some of you will never understand and never accept the premise that any other method than your choice have a place or usefulness under any circumstance!

That's what they call my way or the.......
and we all know how correct that thinking method is.
Good luck!