The advice that I would give to someone who is apprehensive about carrying a firearm in condition one is this:
If you are new to concealed carry and are concerned about carrying in condition one, take your time by wearing your holstered, loaded firearm around the house. Get used to how it feels, how it impacts wardrobe choices and how your range of movement might be affected (sit, stand, reach, bend, etc.)
At the end of the day, reflect on your experience with carrying your firearm and consciously remember that your firearm didnât fire a round (hopefully! YIKES) while resting in a secure holster and without you purposefully pressing the trigger.
Many new concealed carriers (like me 20+ years ago) actually think that everyone in public knows that they are carrying a firearm. They are self conscious and constantly worry about guns âgoing offâ.
The truth is this: If you do not carry a round in the chamber, when an attack occurs, you have a lesser chance of returning fire in time than you would if you were in condition one.
If you are grappling with someone in close who has an edged weapon or who is in the process of executing a gun grab from you, your support or strong hand may be engaged in the fight while trying to get or gain control of your firearm to engage your attacker from in close retention.
Thatâs going to put you into the deficit category even further if your chamber isnât loaded. The premise of the so called âIsraeli methodâ is that every self defense deployment of your firearm will come with your attacker at a distance. Letâs also remember 21 foot rule as described by Lt. John Tueller.
OK I enjoy being the contrarian when the heard is all running off the cliff together. Itâs important to listen to other positions we disagree with in order to keep from being sucked into confirmation bias echo chambers. Even when the heard is going in a very logical direction.
100% agree that carrying with one in the chamber is the best option for the vast majority of situations.
But is not having one in the chamber really worse than not having a firearm at all as many here suggest? In some circumstances I think it could be. If you try to draw in a situation where you do not have enough time and/or space to rack the slide you would have been better off running or fighting with your hands. But I would rather ask a criminal for a second to rack the slide then for however long it would take me to go home and get my firearm;) Seriously though there are many self defense situations where you have or can make time to draw and rack. In these cases a gun you need to rack is way better than no gun at all.
A few situations where you may be better off without one in the chamber-
1 You serve in Israel and are required to carry that way.
2 You insist on carrying a handgun stuffed loosely in a purse, pack or aiwb without a holster.
3 You are doing activities in public that could result in the firearm falling from the holster, like a certain FBI agent showing off his disco moves at a night club.
4 You are unwilling to carry a firearm with one in the chamber for whatever reason. You should be free to carry however you are comfortable.
If you do choose to carry without one in the chamber it is best to practice drawing and racking from multiple positions and one handed, off handed etc. until it is a completely automatic response. And you need to run mental scenarios of the situations that you should not even attempt to draw because of the significant disadvantage you are in when you do not have one in the chamber.
The chance of someone grabbing your gun is perhaps the strongest argument for not having one in the chamber. I would also argue that if someone is on top of you like you describe your efforts should be focused completely on getting them off of you and gaining some distance instead of fighting them off one handed while trying to go for your gun, even if you have the advantage of a round in the chamber.
So let me get this correct ⊠you advocate not having a round in the chamber of a firearm because you feel it would somehow be safer if an attacker were to execute a gun grab?
My years of training in CQB and handgun retention training vehemently disagrees with that premise. And to clarify, I used the term âin close retentionâ to engage your attacker. I didnât say gain distance. If Iâm grappling over a gun, when I get control of it, Iâm not going to stand, assume a shooting stance and engage. It will be from retention (i.e. very, very close).
Unloaded, your sidearm might as well be a hammer. And your contrarian approach on this topic is muddying the waters for people who truly come here seeking solid and proven advice.
Yep, I was thinking about this sometime back as I walked my dog, leash in hand. I donât want my options to be A) keep the dog safe and not be able to defend myself, or B) let my dog potentially run into traffic so I can rack my gun.
Absolutely not advocating empty chamber carry. Just saying a situation where someone gets your gun is one of the very few cases where not having a chambered round would work in your favor.
Sorry for misinterpreting your scenario. A lot of people like to primarily teach and practice using one arm to fight off an attacker while trying to draw with the other. I think this is a flawed strategy in many scenarios.
Drawing and shooting from retention before the attacker is all over you is likely the best argument for having one in the chamber.
I will too. Was trying to make a point it seems everyone that does not carry with a loaded chamber seems to forget. Itâs that âwhat ifâ that could get you killed. What if youâre carrying a baby. What if your attacker shoots first and hits one of your hands. There are countless ways you can all of a sudden only have one handâŠ.and no round in the chamber.
I read the only reason the Israeli carry with an empty chamber is because thatâs the LAW in Israel. If they are going into a fight and they know it, the chamber is loaded.
No, you donât have to carry with one in the chamberâŠ
It is fun to read the posts, because most of people are trying to tell others what is rightâŠand there are only few people who are trying to explain that maybe other option is also rightâŠ
Well stated and gentlemanly offered @Clyde4.
But whatâs this snide remark about coasts? Iâm on the East Coast!
Just messing with you.
I was told by a very wise speaker once that he had to tell a thing at least seven times before people would begin to really receive it.
Repetition isnât a bad thing. In school I found that if I had trouble remembering difficult facts in my history classes, I could write those lines down repeatedly and burn it into my mind. I came up with a perfect score for the terms. I wasnât smarter than everyone else, I just kept putting it in front of my face.
One more thing: we get incorrect information repeated to us much more often that the questions we continue to discuss here. We are bombarded with the same bad info daily. Whatâs wrong with repeating or continuing to discuss good issues?
It may take a bit of repetition to combat the bad.
I fully concur. Even on this site there are many âfactsâ that are cited that are not true. That is one of things I try to do here, provide good information and the sources where I found the information.
Even on this site, I find we often use the language of âgun controlâ, I slip, too. Some of us believe in âcertainâ restrictions that are part of the âgun controlâ agenda. We canât stop the slide if we are also fighting each other. Self-defense does not have ârulesâ, either you win or you lose. Government stating you are not allowed to use or do something impedes our ability to defend ourselves and loved ones; those seeking to harm others are not impeded by these same laws.
