NFOA MEMBERS FORUM
General Categories => Carry Issues => Topic started by: y0diggity on December 27, 2011, 10:41:19 PM
-
Do you Glock-carriers keep it
cocked loaded while you're carrying? I'm curious about your experiences since its a fairly passive safety system on it.
Thanks!
-
Always, and a good holster to keep it in.
-
You need to research how a Glock works. It can not be "cocked" without pulling the trigger fully to the rear to load the firing pin spring. And the firing pin safety blocks the movement of the firing pin until the trigger is pulled.
So, technically, a Glock is never cocked until the instant before the firing pin is released.
Maybe you mean carrying with a round in the chamber?
-
I guess that I figure that one in the chamber is what was meant. It is possible to carry with one in the hole and still need to rack the slide, but you're going to toss number one out.
-
You need to research how a Glock works. It can not be "cocked" without pulling the trigger fully to the rear to load the firing pin spring. And the firing pin safety blocks the movement of the firing pin until the trigger is pulled.
So, technically, a Glock is never cocked until the instant before the firing pin is released.
Maybe you mean carrying with a round in the chamber?
Dan is dead on with this one....... A Glock with a round in the chamber is ready to fire, but the gun IS NOT COCKED until you pull the trigger. It is a "Double Action Only" gun.
When you pull the trigger on a Glock, the back of the trigger bar "cocks" the firing pin, then releases it.
-
Yes, my Glock 19 is carried with 16 rounds in the gun (15 in magazine 1 in chamber) :D.......and also in a holster that covers the trigger (Galco Stow 'n Go inside the waistband).
-
Exactly what I mean, Dan. I just wasn't sure how exactly to say it. Thanks.
-
I carry my Glock loaded and ready to go. You need to carry your weapon in a condition that makes it ready to use. Thinking about carrying without a round chambered? Read this thread; http://nebraskafirearms.org/forum/index.php/topic,4588.0.html (http://nebraskafirearms.org/forum/index.php/topic,4588.0.html)
To be safe carry your Glock chambered in a properly fitted holster, on a properly constructed belt.
Practice drawing over and over again observing proper technique (Safety tip: finger off trigger until muzzle is on target and you have made a conscious decision to fire) this will eventually need to be done quickly.
Now practice re-holstering over and over again observing proper technique (Safety tip: finger off trigger, all clothing, gear, drawstrings, whatever cleared and away from the holster) do this slowly and deliberately. Never be in a hurry to re-holster.
People run into problems when during the draw they are too quick to get their finger on the trigger. There are a number of unconscious physical reactions that will make your hand contract, and if your finger is on the trigger you will have a negligent discharge. Everyone should know what these unconscious physical reactions are.
Same thing happens during re-holstering, finger on trigger, insert into holster = boom. Or you get some part of your gear or clothing caught in the holster that also results in a NG. This has happened numerous times at Front Sight as well as here in Nebraska at at least two CCW classes that I know of (not mine because we discuss this very subject at length)
Both of these problems can be traced to a lack of training and/or carelessness. Get some training, practice regularly and you will begin to feel more confident.
- Shawn
-
My G30 is never carried with an empty chamber...never
-
Obviously not just for Glocks...
See myth number 2:
http://www.shootingillustrated.com/index.php/18228/concealed-carry-myths/ (http://www.shootingillustrated.com/index.php/18228/concealed-carry-myths/)
-
Obviously not just for Glocks...
See myth number 2:
http://www.shootingillustrated.com/index.php/18228/concealed-carry-myths/ (http://www.shootingillustrated.com/index.php/18228/concealed-carry-myths/)
That was a well written article. My girlfriend and her family immediately came to mind :-\
-
This is a good article! I can remember many years ago going to Scheel's in Lincoln to buy my second (or third, I can't remember) gun and the sales guy actually told me "Women should only shoot .22's, they aren't strong enough for anything larger." Mind you, I'm NOT a small female! I can shoot .45 without a problem, so this guy was just being a jerk. I made him get his manager while I explained to them, very kindly, that women can and do shoot centerfire just fine and if it is the store's opinion that females only shoot .22's I would NEVER buy anything from them again. I did not buy a gun from Sheel's that day, and have not done much gun shopping there since that incident.
As far as concealed carry is concerned, one should be carried in the condition of readiness. In a holster! If trigger is not pulled back, the gun will not fire. Simple!
-
Shawn / sjwsti's Self Defense Class at the Bullet Hole changed a lot of my mindset concerning how to carry a weapon, safeties, and such. Excellent instructor that focused on getting his students to think about things rather than just "here are some rules".
The weapon is under your control, you pay it necessary respect and give it a proper living space (ie: holster & belt), and you should have no problem. Why lose precious time in a bad situation by having to rack the slide ? What if you CAN'T rack the slide for whatever reason ?
Modern firearms generally have to have their trigger squeezed in order to discharge. As long as the holster is properly formed to cover / protect the trigger area you should have no problems.
I carry a Sig p229 with a DA/SA trigger (ie: has a hammer). There's always one in the chamber. With the Crossbreed holster and a thick belt I've had zero problems out of my setup. There was a single time when I stood up from an office chair after lazily lounging in it and heard the 'click' of the hammer being pulled back against the bottom of the arm rest (amazing what that sound can do to you hehe). I've debated getting a DAO trigger system installed, but I like the weapon as it is (and practice the heavy DA pull with light SA follow ups).
With the Glocks I've handled, I would feel completely safe holstering one with a round in the chamber (and note, I hate Glocks). Proper respect, practice draw & re-holster, and proper holster ... and you should be good to go IMHO.
-
unfy - your tagline is great! but, hoppe's #9 is AWESOME!! ;)
-
Always...
-
I will agree that carrying a round in the chamber is the way to go if your only concern is being able to defend yourself as best you can. I will not, however, criticize anyone choosing to opt for an empty chamber for the sake of safety. We all know the safety rules, and ideally we all obey them at all times. In reality, that doesn't always happen. People make mistakes, have lapses of memory, or errors in judgement, despite their best intentions. With a round in the chamber, especially on a Glock (with no actual safety), all it takes if for someone to pull that trigger, and bad things may result. At least, with an empty chamber, a person would pretty much have to know what they were doing, and intend to fire a round, for that gun to go off. That's not to say that a child may not come upon an unattended gun and fool around with it long enough to chamber a round and pull the trigger, but the chances are much less than simply pulling the trigger alone. Even an adult, might find the gun and assume it is not loaded. Or, a bad guy might surprise you and get your gun from your holster before you have a chance to react. If all he has to do is pull the trigger, you don't have much of a chance. If he has to chamber a round first, it might give you just enough time to avoid being shot with your own gun.
Again, I'm not saying a well-trained gun handler shouldn't carry a round in the chamber. I'm just saying we shouldn't be so quick to chastise others for choosing to go another way. Going armed at all is a choice; so is chambering a round.
-
Always one in the chamber.
-
As the Gunwise on this forum well know, Col. Jeff Cooper systematized the fundamental carry methods thusly:
Condition Four: Chamber empty, no magazine, hammer down.
Condition Three: Chamber empty, full magazine in place, hammer down.
Condition Two: A round chambered, full magazine in place, hammer down.
Condition One: A round chambered, full magazine in place, hammer cocked, safety on.
Condition Zero: A round chambered, full magazine in place, hammer cocked, safety off.
[Above information courtesy of Wikipedia.]
The issue discussed here in the forum is Condition Two vs. Condition 3. [Also known as IDF Technique or IDF Carry because many members of the Israeli Defense Force carry in such manner.]
If anyone wishes to explore this issue beyond what has been posted on this forum, all that's needed is to Google "IDF" with some additional qualifiers, depending on what you might wish to explore.
Lotsa opinions out there. Somewhere there are those which will surely match your own.
sfg
-
HuskerXDM:
Just to clarify, I'm not saying people should not keep a round in the chamber. I think it is a personal choice and that everyone should respect that choice. As for the "myth" link you posted, I find it somewhat ironic that the author suggests it is imperative to carry a round in the chamber and uses the following statement to make his point:
"One of the most dangerous aspects of this practice is you wind up playing the “Is my gun loaded or not?” game. It also leads to “It’s alright, the chamber is empty,” type of thinking. Loaded guns are safe guns because people treat them with respect. I once had a pistol fired into the ground 2 feet from me because the shooter thought the chamber was empty, so it would be safe to dry-fire."
The last sentence of that paragraph makes my point from my earlier comment very well. The author states that people treat loaded guns with respect, and yet a person fired a round two-feet from him because he thought the chamber was empty. This points out one very important thing: not everyone always follows the safety rules when it comes to handling guns (aren't all guns supposed to be treated as if they are loaded and only pointed in a safe direction?). Also, as much as we'd like to think that our training will prevail in any circumstance, it is painfully obvious that even trained individuals don't always react properly under stressful situations.
Consider this scenario: A person who knows guns and gun handling fairly well gets a CHP and decides to carry. However, he also knows that he has not undergone sufficient training that will guarantee his reaction will be appropriate (if there is such a thing), but his buddies convince him that the only way to carry is to have one in the chamber at all times. Now, he's walking his dog down the street one night when a couple of thugs spring from behind some bushes wielding baseball bats and demand he turn over his valuables. He figures he can get his Glock out of his IWB before they can do him serious harm with their bats, so he goes for it. In the excitement, he forgets to keep his finger off the trigger until he's ready to fire, and the gun goes off as he pulls it from the holster, fatally wounding him by severing his femoral artery. Had this guy been left to choose on his own, he may have opted to leave the chamber empty. Maybe he would have had time to chamber a round and defend himself, or maybe not, but at least he wouldn't have shot himself in the process.
Now that may be a stretch, but we each have to make our own decisions. You may think that if the guy was that unsure of himself that he didn't want a round in the chamber, he shouldn't be carrying at all. However, it's not your decision to make.
When you think about it from a survival standpoint, you should probably be advocating that everyone but yourself keeps an empty chamber. You would be much safer! :)
-
Consider this scenario: A person who knows guns and gun handling fairly well gets a CHP and decides to carry. However, he also knows that he has not undergone sufficient training that will guarantee his reaction will be appropriate (if there is such a thing), but his buddies convince him that the only way to carry is to have one in the chamber at all times. Now, he's walking his dog down the street one night when a couple of thugs spring from behind some bushes wielding baseball bats and demand he turn over his valuables. He figures he can get his Glock out of his IWB before they can do him serious harm with their bats, so he goes for it. In the excitement, he forgets to keep his finger off the trigger until he's ready to fire, and the gun goes off as he pulls it from the holster, fatally wounding him by severing his femoral artery. Had this guy been left to choose on his own, he may have opted to leave the chamber empty. Maybe he would have had time to chamber a round and defend himself, or maybe not, but at least he wouldn't have shot himself in the process.
Sounds like his buddies knew what they were talking about. An unloaded gun isn't good for much.
I'm sure in his CCW class his instructor emphasized the need to keep his finger off of the trigger while unholstering, I'm sure he also was told that he should seek out some advanced training.
But like many gun owners he ignored this advice. I'm mean really, who has time for that. He`s busy, moneys tight (especially after he spent $500 on a new Glock, more on a CCW class, holster and ammo..) and the reality is he just doesn't care that much.
Ignorance and carelessness both bit this guy in the behind. Fortunately we don't have to follow in his footsteps.
If your not comfortable carrying a weapon chambered, get comfortable. To do that will take time and effort. There many excellent training opportunities available in this area that are very affordable. Take advantage of them.
To be blunt, there is nothing I hate more than lame excuses. I don't have time; make educating yourself a priority and you will make time. I'm too old/fat/out of shape; Last summer I watched a 60 year old active duty LEO do 5 days of very tough, very advanced training, 8-10 hrs a day in +100 degree temps and not complain once. There was also an Iraq vet there who had lost most of his primary hand in an IED attack who out shot and out fought many of the other students. I cant afford it; you could afford that gun your carrying, the mandatory CCW class fee and registration fee. Make it a priority and you can set aside the money.
Do you have to do this. Of course not. You are free to do as you like. Right now I'm reading a book by Paul Howe on leadership and training. In the dedication he says this when thanking the men and women of the Armed Forces " Its` mediocrity [The Army] pushed me to improve and Special Ops gave me a home to grow. Special thanks to the NCO`s who set the example and taught me to push farther and faster with greater precision, not because it was required, but because it was the right thing to do. And also for the confirmation in doing what is right versus what is popular"
- Shawn
-
"... because people treat them with respect. I once had a pistol fired into the ground 2 feet from me because the shooter thought the chamber was empty, so it would be safe to dry-fire."
To get away from aggressiveness, uhhhh someone forgot one of the several #1 rules of any firearm, it's ALWAYS loaded, and should ALWAYS be pointed in a safe direction :(.
This would just be carelessness and deserve a good thump on the head :(.
-
A&H my link to the article was only to facilitate discussion. Carry with one in the chamber. Don't carry with one in the chamber. I don't care. I choose to carry with one in the chamber. When I was new to CC I didn't carry one in the chamber, now I do.
-
A&H & Shawn:
As far as the scenario with the guy shooting himself in the heat of the moment because he didn't keep his finger off the trigger until he was ready to shoot:
You don't need to take an advanced training class to master keeping your finger off the trigger. That's something simple that you yourself can practice. And its not hard. Safe gun handling is a state of mind and just a matter of practice/repetition.
.....I'm thinking an overwhelming majority of those folks mentioned in the Armed Citizen section of the NRA magazine had any advanced training let alone any training beyond their hunter safety course or own practice on the range. If determined enough, an individual does not need any training from professionals and could train him/herself by reading their gun manual, gun safety literature, gun safety videos etc. There are plenty of resources available from which one can train oneself to become a master without shelling out hundreds of dollars on advanced gun classes. The average person can get by on taking one basic class or a concealed carry class and then training/practicing on their own.
-
DanClrk51,
I dont completely disagree. Someone that decides to put in the extra time to seek out references and videos and then regularly go to the range to practice can certainly attain a good level of proficiency.
I did just that years ago when I was shooting IPSC and IDPA. I never had any lessons and got pretty good through hard work and regular practice.
But I dont believe anyone can "master" any discipline by themselves. You just cant know everything. And there are things you will get from a professional instructor that you just cant get from a book or video.
The first shooting class I ever attended was put on by Gabe Suarez. My buddy and I honestly didn't think we would learn much but we had heard that this guy was a little crazy and he was teaching things that you couldn't get at the regular shooting schools. By the end of two days I had learned and done drills that I had never seen in a book, or ever even considered that I might need to know or do. It was one of the significant events in my life that changed the way I was training and the gear I was using.
So that couple of hundred dollars ended up being a good investment for me. I have yet to have a student complain that they were ripped off and didn't learn anything. In fact I'm usually told that they feel they got more than they were expecting. So, for them, it was also a good investment.
You are also right about the Armed Citizen, the vast majority of those accounts are from gun owners successfully defending themselves with little to no training.
But were is the section that shows the failures? Do you think they will feature the CCW holder beaten nearly to death in the other thread I posted? The fact is that there are many stories just like that one were armed citizens make wrong choices, or are unsuccessfull in using their weapon at all. You just have to look for them. Don't think that just because it was easy for some that it will be easy for you.
- Shawn
-
Shawn (and others):
I've been around long enough, and paid special attentiion to most anything I came across having to do with guns, to know that most experts (self-proclaimed or genuine) will tell you over and over again that even well-trained people have a difficult time when the situation becomes real. These experts will talk endlessly about the need to practice, practice, practice, until it's no longer your brain telling you what to do, but muscle memory (or something along those lines). We see examples of trained individuals failing to perform effectively all the time. I saw a video from a police car mounted camera of a traffic stop where two officers were trying to arrest a guy. The guy smacked one of the officers and then took off on foot. The two officers both emptied their pistols shooting at the guy and failed to hit him even once. They started shooting when he was only a few feet away from them. I'm sure you've all seen or heard about the LEO who was demonstating in front of a class of school children and shot himself in the foot. The stories go on and on.
Now, I realize many of these trained individuals have probably not had the degree of training that some of you here have had. Still, they've certainly had more training than the average Joe Blow.
It strikes me odd that so many here want the right to keep and bear arms for everyone, uninfringed, and yet they turn around and indicate that no one should be carrying a gun unless they are basically trained to the point of perfection.
Maybe, Shawn, you're not trying to imply that at all, but it sort of sounds that way.
I recently watched some videos (probably from a link off this forum) of people set up in a college lecture situation. One of the students was armed with a paint ball gun, and at some point in the lecture an armed man came in and started shooting (paint balls). This was repeated several times with different students, and none of them got off a shot, or at least were unable to shoot the attacker. At least one of these students was very familiar with guns and considered a good marksman, blah, blah, blah.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that if we all believe in the second amendment, we can't be infringing on it by saying you have to be expertly trained before you should be allowed to carry. Hopefully, anyone carrying knows his/her weapon well enough that they don't shoot anyone by accident. If they are able to fend off an attacker, so much the better. If they can't, too bad for them, but I don't think we can take away their right to defend themselves just because they're not very good at it.
-
Shawn (and others):
Now, I realize many of these trained individuals have probably not had the degree of training that some of you here have had. Still, they've certainly had more training than the average Joe Blow.
All training is not equal. Especially in the Law Enforcement community. To use them as an example I have taught and trained with a number of SWAT teams in eastern Ne as well as Officers from Missouri, Illinois, Ohio and Iowa. I have trained with LEOs that are very skilled and motivated and also LEOs that display terrible fundamentals and tactics that will most likely get them killed if they ever had to fight for their life. And the credit, or blame, can be laid at the feet of their training officers.
For example, I was helping to teach a Strike Tactical Level 1-5 class in Illinois last summer. There was a young Officer who worked for Chicago PD that was falling way short of the accuracy requirement to qualify. After some one on one we determined that he had absolutely no idea how to properly align the sights on his weapon. Once we explained proper sight alignment and front sight focus he did well. He was supposedly trained, but in reality his training was so poor as to border on criminal. And he had been working the streets of Chicago for more than a year.
The flip side would be Omaha SWAT. They are absolutely one of the best trained and skilled teams in the country. Recently one of their Officers was forced to shoot a sword wielding maniac who was about to stab an infant. 3 shots, 3 hits. Two above the collar bones. When I talked to him about the experience he said it was mindset and training that made it seem almost easy.
So I would have to disagree that you cant know how you will react in a life or death situation. I have spoken to too many people who have been there, done that, who did well and attributed it to their training.
It strikes me odd that so many here want the right to keep and bear arms for everyone, infringed, and yet they turn around and indicate that no one should be carrying a gun unless they are basically trained to the point of perfection.
Maybe, Shawn, you're not trying to imply that at all, but it sort of sounds that way.
I don't believe that any training should be required by the govt to have a gun for protection. But if you are really carrying one for self defense and not just carrying to say that you are. It is in your best interest to have some training if you really want to have the best chance of surviving a life or death encounter.
I recently watched some videos (probably from a link off this forum) of people set up in a college lecture situation. One of the students was armed with a paint ball gun, and at some point in the lecture an armed man came in and started shooting (paint balls). This was repeated several times with different students, and none of them got off a shot, or at least were unable to shoot the attacker. At least one of these students was very familiar with guns and considered a good marksman, blah, blah, blah.
I saw the same thing, and have read that it was a set up for TV. The shooter was told before hand exactly who was armed and were they were sitting. Not a realistic portrayal at all.
I have had the opportunity to participate in a drill similar to that one. We had aprox 20 students spread out through a multi room single story bldg. The Instructors simulated a terrorist attack using a number of different tactics and multiple shooters. Only a few students were armed at a time and no one but the Instructors knew who that was. The results of our simulation were quite different than the one staged for TV. As long as you weren't in the first room when they came in blazing away (if you were in that room you got shot) In every scenario an armed student was able to get rounds on the terrorist.
We are all products of our individual experiences. I have had the opportunity to train with some very experienced and dangerous men who have had to fight for their lives on a number of occasions. When someone like that says training is important, I listen. Being a Medic in north Omaha for over a decade I have treated more than a few victims of gunshots, stabbings and assaults and seen them breathe their last breath right in front of me. Its one of the reasons I train so hard because I never want that to be me, or anyone I know lying there.
Sorry for the length of this. Probably time to put it to bed.
- Shawn
-
Shawn:
I don't disagree with the value of training, especially if it is done correctly and frequently. I'm also sure you know a lot more about it than I do. I didn't know much about the videos I mentioned, but I suspected that the "attackers" were aware of who in the classroom was carrying. At least it seemed they took out the armed student quite quickly rather than it being a random shooting or simple a "spray" of bullets that happened to get the armed one. I'm sure there are many well-trained people who react as they were trained, even under the worst of circumstances, and get the job done. I'm not disputing that at all.
For what it's worth, the people you talk about who were well-trained and good at what they did, were mostly the cream of the crop. There is only so much cream in the milk bucket, and it all goes to the top. Most of the bucket is the rest of society, who don't fare nearly so well.
I don't know much about you, but from what I've read of your comments, I'd say you are involved professionally in this type of thing, and you have committed yourself to becoming the best you can be at it. For that I commend you, and I appreciate the value of your experience and your willingness to share it on the forum. Just keep in mind that for every one like you, there are hundreds, or thousands, or more, who are committed to something else. Perhaps they don't have the time or money to do what you have done. It doesn't mean they don't deserve to carry a firearm for self-defense, nor does it preclude them from doing it successfully under the right circumstances (keep the armed citizen stories in mind). Yes, you're right, there may be many more cases of armed citizens who failed to successfully defend themselves, and it could be due to the lack of training.
Okay, I'm probably starting to ramble now. You're right. We should put this to bed (not that I'm trying to get in the last word :)).
-
I recently watched some videos (probably from a link off this forum) of people set up in a college lecture situation. One of the students was armed with a paint ball gun, and at some point in the lecture an armed man came in and started shooting (paint balls). This was repeated several times with different students, and none of them got off a shot, or at least were unable to shoot the attacker. At least one of these students was very familiar with guns and considered a good marksman, blah, blah, blah.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that if we all believe in the second amendment, we can't be infringing on it by saying you have to be expertly trained before you should be allowed to carry. Hopefully, anyone carrying knows his/her weapon well enough that they don't shoot anyone by accident. If they are able to fend off an attacker, so much the better. If they can't, too bad for them, but I don't think we can take away their right to defend themselves just because they're not very good at it.
While agree with you on that 2nd paragraph I don't think Shawn is arguing that your right to carry be taken away either. I think he is just trying to get people better prepared and to constantly strive to get better and better and to prepare for more and more situations. Having said that I also don't think that because you don't seek out advanced training its going to doom you to failure if and when a self defense situation arises.
In regards to that college video: That "experiment" was a total fraud, set up to fail from the beginning. What else could you expect from ABC news? I'm not going to go into detail of why since the NRA and numerous other groups have already exposed that "study" for what it was.
-
Dan (and Shawn):
I didn't really think Shawn meant people without adequate training shouldn't be allowed to carry, and I agree that the more training a person has, the better off we all are. However, even though most of us realize that, it doesn't mean we're going to go out and spend every spare minute of our time and all our spare cash to get more training. I had to drop my membership at the gun range last year because I had more important things to purchase with what money I still had. That's not to say, defending one's self isn't important. But, eating, having a roof over my head, and money for gas outweigh the slim chance that I'll ever need to defend myself with a gun.
As for the videos, I didn't remember exactly how I came across them in the first place, but as I said, I didn't necessarily buy the argument they were making, at least not from the setup they created.
-
Do you Glock-carriers keep it cocked loaded while you're carrying? I'm curious about your experiences since its a fairly passive safety system on it.
Thanks!
So back to the OP's question... you can see there is some debate on this.... do what you feel is best for you. But don't count on having enough time to rack the slide in a SD situation.
-
All failures except failure of the primer to ignite the round happen during the cycling of the slide (failure to feed, failure to extract, etc.)
It would be nice to have at least one round ready to function ahead of time.
Shakey hands under extreme stress don't need an extra step to perform.
-
A glock and derivatives thereof are designed to be carried safely in a good holster when chambered. It cant fire by being bumped, dropped, thrown. You must pull the tigger pretty hard to get it to fire.
Now a 1911 which I carry and is a combat pistol, safety in terms of carrying is a 2nd consideration in the design of that gun. That gun can and will fire if handled improperly and requires more knowledge to do so.
Depending on the situation, I may chamber or not. If sitting in a classroom for hours (not public school type) I usually leave it unchambered for piece of mind. Walking around its chambered.
Make sure you have a good holster, no nylon. Get a blackhawk for OWB or don hume/kholster for IWB. A good holster will cost at least $50 for that gun. Stay away from the holsters at guns unlimited.
-
Dan (and Shawn):
I didn't really think Shawn meant people without adequate training shouldn't be allowed to carry, and I agree that the more training a person has, the better off we all are. However, even though most of us realize that, it doesn't mean we're going to go out and spend every spare minute of our time and all our spare cash to get more training. I had to drop my membership at the gun range last year because I had more important things to purchase with what money I still had. That's not to say, defending one's self isn't important. But, eating, having a roof over my head, and money for gas outweigh the slim chance that I'll ever need to defend myself with a gun.
As for the videos, I didn't remember exactly how I came across them in the first place, but as I said, I didn't necessarily buy the argument they were making, at least not from the setup they created.
I thought this was a healthy conversation so I started another post so as not to detract from the OP's question.
What minimum level of training should a CHP holder strive for? (http://nebraskafirearms.org/forum/index.php/topic,4902.msg35945.html#msg35945)
Fly
-
Get a blackhawk for OWB or don hume/kholster for IWB. A good holster will cost at least $50 for that gun.
I hope your not saying that these are the only safe holster's to carry a 1911 in.
-
I recently watched some videos (probably from a link off this forum) of people set up in a college lecture situation. One of the students was armed with a paint ball gun, and at some point in the lecture an armed man came in and started shooting (paint balls). This was repeated several times with different students, and none of them got off a shot, or at least were unable to shoot the attacker. At least one of these students was very familiar with guns and considered a good marksman, blah, blah, blah.
I saw the same thing, and noted that the "test" was rigged: the "armed man"/active shooter was a police officer that KNEW there was a student in the classroom with a concealed paintball gun, and that he should shoot the guy that did not duck and run or freeze....... and his gun was already out, while the CCW guy had to draw. I doubt anybody could pass that test..... put it on even footing, by not telling the the active shooter that there might be an adversary present, and it'd turn out completerly differently.....
The bottom line there is, by prohibiting guns to targets, you get guaranteed victims. By giving them a gun, you give them a chance, and good one, provided they have the element of surprise, regardless of their skill level.
Now a 1911 which I carry and is a combat pistol, safety in terms of carrying is a 2nd consideration in the design of that gun. That gun can and will fire if handled improperly and requires more knowledge to do so.
ANY gun can and will fire (when not intended!) if handled negligently..... but prohibiting Carry because someone might screw up/perform less than perfectly is akin to prohibiting cars because someone might get hurt or exceed the speed limit.
You should get training, yes, but everybody should be responsible for themselves. Making the State responsible for things always ends badly for free people, eventually, in that it makes them dependant upon the State...... and the State does not have the individual's well being uppermost in it's collective mind.
-
Sparky: No, I just made a couple of suggestions. There are other holsters as well for sure.
Jim P: My post really wast not about training but the OP's original question. I feel a glock is ok to carry chambered for the reasons I specified. A 1911 is also safe to carried chamber but requires more care. Easier trigger pull, decocking requires more care.
All in all these guns are both very safe, but the 1911 does require more care to carry properly. A glock is a great carry gun for anyone with a brain. A 1911, not so much, need a smarter brain.
-
Easier trigger pull(on a 1911),
A shorter, crisper one,yes, agreed.
..... decocking requires more care.
What is this "decocking" of which you speak? It sounds grotesque..... and/or painful!
;D
Seriously: Cocked and Locked Carry. It can't be made simpler. There is no decocking. Only shooting or unloading.
-
I mean to ease the hammer back down without setting off the round.
Not to be confused with what a wife or girlfriend does after marriage and/or divorce.
-
If you are too stupid to put gas in your tank where it can be used then you are too stupid to own a car.
-
If you are too stupid to put gas in your tank where it can be used then you are too stupid to own a car.
Not sure I follow you there? Are you saying that because I don't carry with a round in the chamber that I'm too stupid to own a firearm? Just getting some clarity here.
-
Sometimes I carry 4 in the chamber. (http://myweb.cableone.net/uziforme/cop3.jpg)
-
I carry a Hi-power most days this time of year. It's a single action similar in operation to a 1911. A holster that covers the trigger guard and has a sweat shield molded to the safety is perfectly safe. Even if the safety is knocked off, the trigger guard is covered and nothing bad will happen so long as basic safety rules are followed.
At the range, I have a very nice, and very safe, avenger style holster by Sparky that I would recommend in a heartbeat.
-
I mean to ease the hammer back down without setting off the round.
I'm very familiar with SA pistols like 1911s and Hi-powers. This is something that should never be done. The hammer only falls with the intent of firing a round, or on an empty chamber.
-
mean to ease the hammer back down without setting off the round.
Why would you do this?
-
GLOCKs are not double action pistols. They fall under "preset" type pistols. The trigger cannot fully "cock" the gun and the striker won't ignite the primer without that little extra spring tension provided by the trigger.
-
bones1014...don't tell Glock or the BATFE that Glocks are not Double Action....
-
Nevermind
-
mean to ease the hammer back down without setting off the round.
Why would you do this?
Still wondering...... can someone enlighten me?
-
Jim P, on some double action pistols, such as the CZ75, original Taurus 92, and several other earlier types, you had to manually lower the hammer to put it into double action mode after racking the slide. While on some you could simply carry cocked and locked (like the famous 1911) most people did not feel comfortable (some still don't) with the weapon set like that. So that is when you would lower the hammer manually.
-
Still wondering...... can someone enlighten me?
You might have to elaborate on your question. From the looks of your avatar, you own 1911 style pistols, so I was not sure where you were coming from.
Fly