Do you carry "Round Chambered" or not ?

[WildBill]

If you are not comfortable with one in the hole you are a perfect candidate for revolvers... which don't have one in the hole, they have one in the NEXT hole, which is completely different.

Are you suggesting having one empty chamber in a revolver?

some here are suggesting having an empty chamber on an auto pistol... and no, i'm pointing out that the round that is in line with the barrel isn't the one that shoots off, it's the next one on the cylinder... so any one who is still nervous after the 10 pound DA pull, they can feel much better about that.

Okay, got it!

[Fast Mopar]

I guess I'm the odd man out. I carry all the time, usually my Kel Tec P3AT in the pants pocket (shirt tucked in) or my Smith & Wesson M&P 9 mm in a holster (shirt not tucked in). Magazine loaded and in, of course, but not one in the chamber. The M&P and Kel Tec do not have a safety, and that is why I carry the way I do. Yes, I know, very few agree with that, and I know that it takes two hands and extra time for me to be ready to shoot. Yes, I am fully aware of that. But, I am also fully aware that the decision to actually draw on someone is a critical decision that is not taken lightly, and at this point I am willing to continue to do it this way. I have been carrying for 5 months, every day, and I still think that it is better to carry the way I do than to not carry at all. I also know that many do not agree with me. I'm not looking to argue or anything - I do enjoy reading the various posts and I think Mr. Cotton does an excellent job with this site. But, I just wanted to throw out another point of view, that's all. Thanks for listening.

[LarryH]

some here are suggesting having an empty chamber on an auto pistol... and no, i'm pointing out that the round that is in line with the barrel isn't the one that shoots off, it's the next one on the cylinder... so any one who is still nervous after the 10 pound DA pull, they can feel much better about that.

To some extent, this depends on the type of revolver you carry. For example, the manual for the "old-style" single-action Ruger revolvers recommend hammer down on empty chamber because of the possibility that bumping the hammer could detonate the primer in the "in-line" chamber. This does not apply to the "new-style" Rugers, but both my single-action Rugers are old-style. The manual for the Security-Six double-action from Ruger does not contain the above recommendation, nor do the manuals for the new-style Single-Six, Blackhawk, etc.

I can't comment on revolvers from any other manufacturer.

[dac1842]

why would anyone carry and not have one chambered. That just doesnt make any sense.

[frankie_the_yankee]

why would anyone carry and not have one chambered. That just doesnt make any sense.

[mr surveyor]

For me, when the clothing allows, it's a Sig 239/40 chambered and decocked. Any other time it's normally some form of Kel-Tec (more compact) chambered.

[Skiprr]

For example, Glock's ain't got no manual safety. M9s ain't got a safety either: they have a manual decocker (despite what what some call it, it is NOT a safety).

????? The lever on an M9 is a 2 position lever that isolates the trigger from the firing mechanism, and isolates the firring pin from the hammer. It also doubles as a decocker if that isn't a safety then I am confused. Maybe you are confused with the 92G which is configured as a spring loaded decocker....

Naw; not confused. Just "Farnamized": too many classes with John Farnam.

I remember Mas Ayoob writing an article some time ago with a title like, "Can Semantics Get You Killed?" I think Farnam would say, "Yes." He never refers to a two-stage manual decocker as a "safety," and you won't hear his students calling it that, either. His general opinion can be summed up:

I suspect the two-stage, manual decocking lever, like the "magazine safety," is something all manufacturers wish had never been invented. I, for one, wish neither had ever existed. Label any contraption a "safety," and some politician (who wouldn't know a gun from a waffle iron) will decide to mandate it. They care about their own safety, not ours!

With an item of emergency--safety equipment, like a pistol--that I carry routinely, the last thing I want on it is some confusing gimmick that will prevent it from working! Those of us who are serious need to have access to serious guns. We can only pray that manufacturers, between meetings with politicians and other grasseaters, will think of us every now and then.

A big peeve of John's is that the Marines still teach recruits to carry with the M9 decocked and sterilized. More comments:

Vicki [Farnam, John's wife], Steve Camp, Tom Burris, Les Laturno, and I, once again worked with our Marines in CA last week [circa 2006]. We did two, two-day Military Pistol Courses.

Most of our students will deploy overseas shortly. All used the M9 (Beretta 92F) pistol.

The "sterile carry" was the big issue. Most of our students indicated that they had been taught to carry the holstered M9 with a round chambered, but with the two-stage decocking lever (which they called the "safety") in the down ("sterile") position. Amazingly, even after the pistol is drawn, they indicated their instruction had been to leave the decocker down until an instant before they intended to fire....

When I asked if any had ever been through practice sessions where they were trained to push the lever up during the draw, all responded that no such training had ever been provided. In fact, most indicated that they had never been allowed to draw and fire the pistol from a holster in the first place.

When the decocking lever on these pistols is down, the hammer is always fully forward, because pushing the lever down automatically decocks the weapon. Also, when the decocking lever is down, the trigger is disconnected, and the weapon is thus sterile. Accordingly, pushing the decocking lever down effectively sterilizes, as well as decocks, the pistol. When carried this way, the decocking lever must be pushed up as the weapon is being drawn from the holster, so that the shooter will be able to shoot when the weapon comes on target. Because of the design and location of the decocking lever, most people find pushing it up during the draw clumsy, dubious, and difficult to master (even after a great deal of practice). Under stress, it is prone to failure. Not surprisingly, veteran gunmen carry this autoloader with the decocking lever up.

When the decocking lever is up, the pistol is "enabled." However, there is an additional passive firing-pin lock, interconnected with the trigger, that continues to block the firing pin until the trigger is pulled all the way and held to the rear. This insures that the weapon will not fire unless the trigger is held all the way to the rear during the entire forward hammer arc. It is a passive safety device that functions automatically, without conscious input from the shooter. Thus, when the hammer is fully forward, a live round is chambered, and the decocking lever is up, the weapon is every bit as safe as a double-action revolver in the same condition. Carrying the pistol with the decocker down doesn't make it one bit "safer."

The point is this: After years of experience training police officers, I have found precious few who can reliably push the decocking lever up as they are drawing the weapon and bringing it on target. Even people who claim they can do it, when put to the test, can't do it....

Like a fire extinguisher, a pistol is an item of emergency, life-saving equipment. It is critical that users and carriers of pistols be able to bring them to bear on the problem quickly, deftly, and with a minimum of encumbrances. Fortunately, we were able to persuade our students to abandon the sterile carry and carry the M9 "enabled," as do most professional gunmen. One Gy/Sgt commented, "I'm just going to carry it this way (enabled) from now on, and, if the Range Nazis don't like it, they can write me up!"

Bottom line is that what John will call a safety is a device that will keep a cocked hammer or striker from firing. Think a 1911 or a CZ 75, or a Stoner design M16/AR platform. By that definition, firearms that have a decocker--be it a one- or two-stage manual decocker, or that are automatically decocking--do not have a "safety." He thinks the incorrect terminology sends the wrong message to politicians, procurement officers, manufacturers, and undertrained shooters.

Firearms can have multiple devices intended to improve safety, like the Glock Safe-Action trigger, beaver-tail blocks, the Kimber Series II firing pin block, or the "magazine safety" mentioned earlier. But a safety is a singular device that is specifically designed to prevent a cocked hammer or striker from falling so long as that device is engaged. Handguns that have a safety are correctly, optimally carried with striker or hammer cocked, and the safety engaged. That's what they're made for.

[Liberty]

Bottom line is that what John will call a safety is a device that will keep a cocked hammer or striker from firing. Think a 1911 or a CZ 75, or a Stoner design M16/AR platform. By that definition, firearms that have a decocker--be it a one- or two-stage manual decocker, or that are automatically decocking--do not have a "safety." He thinks the incorrect terminology sends the wrong message to politicians, procurement officers, manufacturers, and undertrained shooters.

Firearms can have multiple devices intended to improve safety, like the Glock Safe-Action trigger, beaver-tail blocks, the Kimber Series II firing pin block, or the "magazine safety" mentioned earlier. But a safety is a singular device that is specifically designed to prevent a cocked hammer or striker from falling so long as that device is engaged. Handguns that have a safety are correctly, optimally carried with striker or hammer cocked, and the safety engaged. That's what they're made for.

Huhh .. and Mr Farnum is the final arbitrator of what is a Safety? sounds like he has more ego than brains if he wants to redefine the nomenclature on handguns just because he doesn't like it. It would be like me trying to rename sights as "aiming thingys"

The Safety on my Beretta and Ruger perform the same function as the lever on a 1911, and M16 when on on safe. I wonder makes him more of an expert than the manufactures. My manuals refer to it as a safety and most users will continue to do so, amnd most of us will never attend a Farnam school to learn different.

I do agree with him that Marines and soldiers should carry the M9 with one in the pipe. but he has no shortage of ego if he thinks he can change their mind.

[frankie_the_yankee]

Firearms can have multiple devices intended to improve safety, like the Glock Safe-Action trigger, beaver-tail blocks, the Kimber Series II firing pin block, or the "magazine safety" mentioned earlier. But a safety is a singular device that is specifically designed to prevent a cocked hammer or striker from falling so long as that device is engaged. Handguns that have a safety are correctly, optimally carried with striker or hammer cocked, and the safety engaged. That's what they're made for.

So what would Farnum call the devices on my Para LDA? (Note that on the Para, the hammer is always down - i.e. it cannot be cocked - except when the trigger is pulled to fire the gun.) As far as I know, they consist of:

1) A device that Para Ordnance calls a "grip safety" that functions similar to that of a 1911 pattern gun.

2) A device that Para Ordnance calls a "manual safety" that is frame mounted and looks like the safety of a 1911 pattern gun, but functions such that when in the raised ("safe") position the trigger is completely disconnected from the hammer and can move freely through its entire range of motion without having any effect whatsoever.

3) A firing pin block that is generally similar to a Colt Series 80 in that it consists of a slide mounted plunger that blocks forward motion of the firing pin unless the trigger is pulled fully to the rear.

As an engineer by profession, I am used to using precise nomenclature to identify or refer to the various parts of a machine or device when communicating with other engineers. Generally, the authoritative sources for this nomenclature are the manufacturer's engineering drawings, data sheets, and manuals. It does me no good to refer to something as a "mainshaft Timkin bearing", even though it may be exactly that, if the manufacturer calls it a "mainshaft roller bearing".

BTW, I am not taking issue at all with Farnum's position on the proper way to carry the Beretta. I think his analysis and advice are 100% dead on in that regard.

[Skiprr]

Huhh .. and Mr Farnum is the final arbitrator of what is a Safety? sounds like he has more ego than brains if he wants to redefine the nomenclature on handguns just because he doesn't like it. It would be like me trying to rename sights as "aiming thingys"

I very much value your opinion, and don't mean to refute it. I was--after a couple of days away from the Forum--just responding to your post asking if I were confused.

I'd suggest you do decide to take one of John's classes, though. Then you and he can have the discussion. His courses are eminently worthwhile, great value for the money, and I plan to attend again next October. We can carpool from Houston if you opt in. I'll drive, and you wouldn't even have to pay for gas.

Farnam is one of maybe three-dozen internationally known trainers who does what he does. I've attended classes from a couple of others, and they all have their merits.

I do want to point out a caveat to make sure I'm not miscommunicating John's opinions: He does acknowledge that some refer to the manual, two-stage decocking mechanism as a safety, and it absolutely is in "sterile" mode when the decocking lever is down. He just doesn't feel it's the appropriate term for the device...and he is not the only professional who shares that opinion.

A big reason for this is because, from an historical perspective, John is not the one redefining nomenclature. The "decocker" was invented long after the "safety."

The Safety on my Beretta and Ruger perform the same function as the lever on a 1911, and M16 when on on safe.

It performs the same intended purpose--to keep the gun from firing--but it does not perform the same function. In the case of the 1911 and M16, and others, the safety prevents the hammer or striker from falling onto a primer. You can't activate the safety unless the hammer or striker is cocked.

The decocking lever on your Beretta decocks the hammer and sterilizes the pistol. Is it safe in that position? Absolutely.

But functionally these two conditions are very different.

I wonder makes him more of an expert than the manufactures. My manuals refer to it as a safety and most users will continue to do so, amnd most of us will never attend a Farnam school to learn different.

My friend, you are the Libertarian. I respect you for that. And I leave you with this thought:

You are a firearms manufacturer. If a hugely lucrative, military contract required a firearm to have a "safety" (probably because that is what the military was accustomed to calling those hammer-lock mechanisms it had used for decades) what would you, the manufacturer, decide to call your decocking mechanism?

What would its name be in the product manuals? What would you put in your press releases? How would you recommend those military instructors refer to the lever?

Many millions in corporate profit ride on your decision...

[Liberty]

I tend to bow up, when 'experts' attempt a change of our language. It is an Orwellian thing. In my life time I have seen wording and phrases modified for political correctness. The word 'Gay' for instance. Its a frustration that I shouldn't expect others to empathize with.

I wonder makes him more of an expert than the manufactures. My manuals refer to it as a safety and most users will continue to do so, and most of us will never attend a Farnam school to learn different.

My friend, you are the Libertarian. I respect you for that. And I leave you with this thought:

You are a firearms manufacturer. If a hugely lucrative, military contract required a firearm to have a "safety" (probably because that is what the military was accustomed to calling those hammer-lock mechanisms it had used for decades) what would you, the manufacturer, decide to call your decocking mechanism?

What would its name be in the product manuals? What would you put in your press releases? How would you recommend those military instructors refer to the lever?

Many millions in corporate profit ride on your decision...

Even though the new energy saving lightbulbs and the filament bulbs have different operating principles they are still lightbulbs.

The safety on a Beretta decocks the hammer. It also isolates the hammer from from the firing pin. blocks the firingpin and isolates the hammer from the trigger. In training it can be treated and respected in the same way. Calling the lever on a handgun such as the M9 a decocker, would only serve to understate its purpose. Most DA/SA come in both flavors either, what is called a safety or what is called a decocker. Calling the dual position lever would be less descriptive and more vague than calling it a safety. As it is now, if I call it a safety there is very little doubt with most users exactly what we are reffering to.

As I think about the issue though, I think I understand where Farnam is coming from. The referencing of the Safetys by Glock is confusing, but I think that is a seperate issue than that ofthe most SA/DA and decocker models

[remington79]

I couldn't vote since there isn't an option for me. I'm going to start carrying an XD 45 compact with one in hte chamber. I currently carry a H&K USP Compact in 40. With the H&K I carry with one in the chamber safety off, decocked. The long heavy DA pull is no differant than a Sig or revolver. My holsters cover the trigger and I index so that's not an issue. One in the chamber is the only way to go. I plan on the worst case and that doesn't leave time to chamber a round.

[amber]

Taurus 85 with rounds in all five chambers but no safety lock.

[bryang]

Colt 1911 .45, "cocked and locked" ready to go.

[chewy555]

Anything that I carry is ready to go. To me, I dont think that I could carry a weapon that was not ready to go.

I used to work for a security company that it was company policy that you could not have had a round in the chamber. You know what, I carried with a round in the chamber. I said that my life was worth more then that job. I had one person say something about it in passing, but nothing more. I did leave that company, but not because of that policy, I just did not follow it.
What happens if you have to draw your weapon and you only have the use of one hand, how are you going to rack the slide in a safe and fast way? I have never been able to find one, but that is just me.