Carrying With A Round In The Chamber?
Not everyone owns a gun, and that's fine because it truly is a responsibility and it's not for everyone. It's a right, not a privilege or a mandate, and I respect those who've contemplated it, looked into what it entails, and decided it's not something they want to do. Of those who have chosen to purchase a firearm, it's an even smaller number of those who seek out the training, pass the required testing, and obtain a concealed firearm permit from their state. I've had people attend the concealed carry class, with the intent to get a permit and carry, just to finish the class and decide it wasn't something they were willing to take on. The legal consequences, the responsibilities, and the very serious nature of the ethical and moral factors are quite substantial, and for those who change their mind after going through the training, I respect them as well. They've taken an honest assessment of themselves and do not want to hold themselves to all of that, and that's always encouraged and respected by me -that takes a mature understanding of all factors and making a very honest decision. But for those who've done all of the above, and carry a concealed firearm on their person daily for the purpose of lawful self-defense, there seems to be one topic that brings up a big point of contention; "do you carry with a round in the chamber, or not?"
For those unfamiliar, we're talking about having a cartridge loaded in the chamber of the barrel, ready to fire if the trigger is pressed and/or the required safety button or lever is made ready (depending on gun design). This would be in contrast to what is called "condition amber," which is nothing in the chamber (gun on "safe" if it has a manual safety), with a loaded magazine inserted into the gun. The pertinent difference being that with a round in the chamber ("condition red"), the gun is immediately ready for use once taken out of the holster and presented on target, whereas when not carrying with a round in the chamber, the slide of the pistol would have to be "racked" to feed a round into the chamber, and then the gun is ready for use. This process would be further complicated depending on the design of the firearm in question, where a manual safety would have to be placed on "fire" in addition to racking the slide to chamber a round.
The prevailing mission is to avoid needing to use the gun in the first place -which means a multitude of choices we should be making throughout our day. We avoid certain high-crime parts of town entirely, but perhaps for other locations not as bad, we'll run errands or be willing to go there during daylight or normal business hours, but you won't find us there after sundown. We aren't buried in our phones, oblivious to what's happening around us -we look into the 7/11 windows to see if it looks normal and peaceful before we decide to enter. You won't see us going for a jog with both earphones in, and we pay attention to who and what is around us as we go about our day. We generally park our cars within plain view from inside the restaurant or establishment we're visiting, and we avoid road rage or verbal altercations in parking lots or with random strangers in public. If someone in public is angry that we "stole their parking space" or something like this, we kindly back down and not get involved -we don't look for trouble, and anything minor that could come up, we stay calm, be respectful, apologize if needed, and walk away. We're not looking for trouble, we don't want trouble, and we certainly don't want to help escalate a situation that would eventually result in us having to defend ourselves -we would face legal and ethical liability in helping piss someone off enough to the point we now needed to use our gun. In plain terms, having a lawfully concealed gun on your person in public means your behavior reflects a hesitation to get involved in anything, and it's better to let things go or get out of there and walk away rather than the potential alternative should things get dangerous. We are not "the hero" and we're not looking to be, we'd rather call the proper authorities and leave rather than insert ourselves to place legal and lethal risk upon ourselves. On the rare occasion these principles aren't being followed, they become national news stories, such as the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman tragedy -politics and emotions aside, that would be a perfect example of what we DO NOT do, as concealed carry permit holders. We are not the police, we are not vigilantes, we know our place as regular, private citizens, and we're not there to insert ourselves into problems, or become the problem itself.
Despite one's best efforts, of avoiding bad areas of town, of being polite and avoiding conflict, there may be a moment that arises in which all of our best efforts and actions still result in a random, unwanted, and immediately dangerous situation that we didn't want or ask for. We know the chances of needing our gun in public to defend ourselves is thankfully very remote, and with the choices we're making every day, our victimization rate is most usually lower than most, making the chances even less. But we also understand the consequences of getting it wrong are extreme, so we carry (think of it like wearing a mask). Looking at the data and known examples of private citizens using their lawfully-carried firearm to defend themselves, or others, we can see that these circumstances often happen fast, usually random, and at close range. I often hear, from other gun owners, that their reason for carrying a gun in the first place is to be able to preserve their own lives, to protect their children, to fight off a rapist or attacker, the list goes on. But the main identifying thesis between all of this is to be able to do something to defend your own life in those vital seconds when and where it's actually happening (going back to the adage "when seconds count, the police are only minutes away"). But to do this, I care about what I most-often don't hear from many gun owners and concealed carriers; "what about the fractions of a second that you might only have?"
Firstly, to successfully un-holster a pistol, present it on target, and make shots that count, we're talking about a process that takes some measure of time. This specific event is what spurred the famous "21 foot rule," in which uniformed police officers with openly-carried sidearms were challenged to do this task while another person was running at a full sprint. On "GO," both the officer and the runner began un-holstering and sprinting, where it was noticed that, on average, the "runner" could achieve a distance of approximately 21 feet before the gun could be successfully un-holstered, presented and aimed on target, and the first round fired. In law enforcement training over the years, this was used to demonstrate the amount of distance someone, perhaps with a knife, could close on you before you could actually get the gun out of the holster, on target, and get off even just the first shot. Again, this is with the officer being prepped and told to un-holster and shoot, in a training environment, and still this action takes time (depending on equipment and level of training). And again, we're talking about a pistol that is on a duty belt, openly-carried, and not concealed by a shirt or jacket, which must be brushed out of the way to present a concealed pistol. Yet still, the well-practiced and well-trained are capable of split-second abilities, but the point remains; we need to have the gun mechanically ready to fire and do its job because we don't know when it may be needed, and if urgently needed at random, we need it FAST. The following video is graphic, but it's valuable here to demonstrate a couple things. Firstly, how a well-practiced individual can achieve this very rapidly, but also how random this kind of immediate and lethal need can really be. In this video, an officer is doing a routine traffic stop, which immediately becomes and serious and lethal threat out of nowhere. Again, we are not the police, and we're not trying to be, but examples like this usually only end up on film due to dashcam footage and bodycams most police officers have these days, but the point still remains.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRAY8TL600Y
In this case, the officer was aware, and was able to un-holster, present his gun on target, and at least get one successful shot off before getting physically attacked and shoved back to the ground. I'm not here to discuss law enforcement procedures and training, that's not my background, but this video demonstrates how random yet dangerous something could become, and what proper practice and training can achieve. It also should abundantly display the fact that, there's not a lot of time if a situation like this were to arise. Again, this was footage from a police officer doing his job in what started as a "routine" traffic stop, but the bottom line is that the limited timeframe and drastic change from "routine" to violent happened instantly, and instant action was needed to preserve life.
By now, I think it's clear that I personally support and believe in carrying with a round in the chamber. For those newer to carrying concealed, it's common that they do not carry with a round in the chamber from the onset. This is understandable, because it really is a journey, and as you continue to progress through this way of living, it's encouraged to always seek more training, and keep your skills well-practiced. Eventually, with enough training, experience, practice, and of course quality equipment, carrying a completely loaded firearm will show up. For those who even own guns, and yet fewer of those who go through the training, and the fewer of those who go through with getting the permit after understanding all of the responsibilities placed on them, I do advocate for carrying with a round in the chamber. I have encountered others who do not believe in carrying a pistol with a round in the chamber, and they've explained their reasoning for it. They've also shown me what I call "magic shows," in which they demonstrate "what they'll do" if they need their gun, and exactly how they will chamber that round. I've seen many "magic shows" over the years, usually involving utilizing both hands to rack the slide, or racking the slide on the edge of a sturdy belt, or racking the slide on the edge of the convenient table or desk that's next to them. Not only do these methods take time, but some of it relies upon an assumption you got both hands available to do it with, or that you will perfectly hit the rear sight on your favorite belt or nearby furniture. Using the non-firing hand to push off an attacker, create distance, and/or take the blows or stab wounds while readying and presenting the gun with the firing hand is a technique that has been utilized to save many lives. If not needed, then we're still saving time in a lethal situation that is both close range, and where every fraction of a second counts.
Reasons People Don't Carry With A Round In The Chamber
By and large, the main reason some do not carry with a round in the chamber boils down to a lack or deficiency in one (or more) of several ways: lack of training, lack of experience, or inadequate equipment (gun, holster, or both). For some, there initial experiences (or only experience) shooting was as a kid, shooting with Grandpa. Grandpa probably had older guns with an older design or mechanical operating system, in which you not only wanted but you needed manual safeties on those older guns. Grandpa also didn't want any accidents or issues shooting with the grandkids, so an abundance of safety was probably being exercised at the time. Fast forward decades later, these people come in the shop looking for a gun, and are astounded the Glock 19 in front of them doesn't have a manual safety at all. They don't have a mechanical understanding of how the gun works internally, so they don't realize that it's completely safe and designed to be carried with a round in the chamber. They also look back to Boy Scout camp, or shooting with Grandpa, where keeping it on "safe" and not having anything in the chamber was the rule of the day, until they were on the range and aiming their gun at a target.
For others, they haven't had any training on the range or done any training courses, where they work with holsters and experience the reliability and internal safeties at work all day, understanding the functional realities of the safe-action guns we have today. It just takes time, training, and a mechanical understanding of the gun in question, but without those things, it's not surprising some are not comfortable carrying with a round in the chamber. We're human beings, and since before recorded history we've also had an inclination to fear what we do not yet know or understand.
I also get the "Israeli carry" argument every now and then, which is used to justify the practice of carrying without a round in the chamber. The Israeli military mandates that their soldiers don't carry their pistols or rifles with a round in the chamber. They are dealing with a conscript army and limited training opportunities, and soldiers carry their issues weapons with them in normal life, outside of uniform and garrison. The idea being, in the event of an attack or situation, they can rack a round into the chamber, run towards the event and help. In the US Military, the practice is also universal for standard units of troops, where we had to carry "condition amber" on the FOB or camp, yet chambered a round before going on mission outside the wire. These policies were designed and are utilized as a "blanket policy" to reduce the chance of NDs (negligent discharges) across many tens of thousands of troops with a wide array of levels of training and experience. In searching for their next service pistol, the US Army even required that submitted gun designs MUST have a manual safety, when the gun actually requires one or not (in the case of the Sig Sauer P320, and Glock 19X). These are administrative decisions made to reduce the chance of accidents among a huge force, even to the point of purposely retrograding the pistols to help in that effort. But for professionals (Special Forces, SWAT Officers, Law Enforcement), where enhanced and concurrent training and experience is the norm, carrying with a round in the chamber isn't even a question. As a private citizen with the ability to seek competent training and practice, we can do better than administrative policies set forth in the hopes of reducing accidents among thousands of inadequately-trained troops or conscripts.
In a worst-case scenario, which I've seen only a couple times, it's a lack of trust in the equipment. Maybe the gun is old, rusted, and in need of repair. In my last encounter with this conundrum, the guy said "yeah, when I've shot it the last couple times, I've noticed the hammer slips, and it can go off without pulling the trigger, so I just carry it unloaded just in case." If the equipment itself is the failure point, that is unsafe, and you either need to get the gun repaired or obtain a new gun that is mechanically safe and in good order. I've also seen an alarmingly high amount of holsters that were inadequate, unsafe, or outright dangerous -probably the top of this list would be the old BlackHawk! SERPA holsters. In that case, we need to continue to search for a quality and competent holster that isn't the failure point either.
Lastly, I can share a video I did a while back in which I demonstrate how I carry different types of pistols, using the four main types of pistols most people these days tend to carry. This isn't me telling you how to carry, but this is simply how I do it -utilizing different types of pistols that all work in different ways.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSt4YJdV_Yk
Hopefully this helps someone, and hopefully it wasn't too dry. A lot of things pertaining to concealed carry may be dry, but they are still important.
