5 ms·

Holstered guns shouldn't have a round in the chamber. That's also very negligent.

by _mlbt 1y ago

mothballed 1y ago
That's hilarious.
- _mlbt 1y ago
  I'll admit, that one's just my opinion, since the community is very divided on this and there's no consensus. I feel that the safety versus response time trade off is worth it for me. It could be from my military background, but for me a negligent discharge is one of the worst things I could possibly do with a firearm. I was also raised to never trust a safety and unload my gun when crossing fence lines while hunting.
  - mothballed 1y ago
    Fair enough, I can respect the difference in opinion. A couple notes though on the military or hunters ed training safety that might influence their training 1) The safety mechanisms on say a glock are different than on a lot of military rifles soldiers are trained on. An Ar-15/M16 can go off without pulling the trigger if the firing pin gets stuck in the channel. That won't happen with a glock because the safety physically blocks the primer from being struck. Also in theory a free-floating firing pin could maybe somehow get slammed hard enough or slam an abused primer enough to set off some military rifles. 2) Some hunting shotguns or military rifles aren't drop safe. Modern handguns are. 3) A military rifle or hunting rifle generally has the trigger exposed at all times you are carrying it. A CCW handgun, you are not exposing the gun and trigger unless you are about to shoot someone. Now I've never served in the military, other than a rag-tag Kurdish militia. What I would imagine the boot sergeant or whatever they are called do, is tells the soldier they will keep the manual safety on or the weapon unchambered and leave it at that, because explaining the intricacies of a striker-fired pistol vs an M16 to a bunch of barely out of highschoolers from Guam who are already exhausted from sleep deprivation and jarring work-outs would not be terribly productive.
    - avidiax 1y ago
      > An Ar-15/M16 can go off without pulling the trigger if the firing pin gets stuck in the channel. That won't happen with a glock because the safety physically blocks the primer from being struck. This is precisely one of the issues with Gen1 Glocks that was remediated. The firing pin safety prevents the firing pin from moving forward unless the gun is in battery and the trigger is partially depressed. It doesn't force the pin to move backwards if it is jammed forward (due to dirt). A pin that's jammed will slam fire the gun when racked. Always rack in a safe direction.
jakogut 1y ago
Carrying a chambered gun in a holster covering the trigger is not negligent. It's how millions of military, law enforcement, and civilians carry on a daily basis.
- mdhb 1y ago
  Having one in the chamber IS actually a fucking ridiculous way to carry on a daily basis. That makes sense in a war zone, it makes zero sense walking the streets of any American city. Source: many years of carrying a weapon in a professional capacity.
  - mothballed 1y ago
    I would recommend you take an entry level CCW class. There are valid reasons why one would or wouldn't carry with one in the chamber, and opinions can be respected. However, not knowing why it might make sense for someone else to choose indicates severely flawed "professional" knowledge and a deficient education. Most of the 'against' reasons are much stronger with the kind of rifles soldier get drilled on in boot camp, some of whom walk away with a very simplified view of gun safety tailored around their military rifle that is wrongly generalized to modern striker fired CCW pistols. I certainly don't expect I'll be able to address this from someone confidently bragging about years of "professional" experience carrying an unchambered weapon as the only right way to do it on the street, so hopefully you can find a class with someone with a background you respect so it will go through your brain.
    - mdhb 1y ago
      There absolutely are valid reasons. Like I said, patrolling in an active war zone is an example of one. Walking around on base for example isn’t even remotely close to one. This isn’t uniquely an American thing but it’s extremely common in the US in a way that absolutely isn’t in any kind of comparable country. I don’t know what it is exactly, other than maybe the very weird and extremely pervasive “operator mentality” that seems to make everyone extremely horny for pretending situations are much more dangerous than they really are. If you’re going to carry a weapon it’s really a very basic requirement that you can do some reasonable level of threat analysis and respond to the situation around you as it develops. Again, I’m not saying those situations don’t exist where it makes sense but they are absolutely the exception and are a very weird thing to pretend are the default. I think it’s a culture problem and people are just scared.
runjake 1y ago
I won't share my opinions of your statement, but I've seen no information on whether or not there was a round in the chamber at the time of the incident. Regardless, depending on the situation and specifically in the USAF, you are ordered to either carry with a round in the chamber or not, and you'd damned well follow those orders. It's beside the point, but I imagine, based on my own first hand experience, that USAF Security Forces typically carry without a round in the chamber, in most situations. I did Weapons Courier duty and I was ordered to carry a round in the chamber and be "locked and loaded" at all times.
- wyldberry 1y ago
  It would be wild news if a firearm was able to discharge without a round in chamber. Even without information, for it to discharge there must be a a round in chamber. Marine Corps order for MP and armed guard standard is round in chamber, weapon on safe, slide forward, hammer down. It stands to reason that is the standard case for all military LEO. All that to say, anyone who says you shouldn't have a round in chamber is living in a fantasy world.
  - int_19h 1y ago
    > anyone who says you shouldn't have a round in chamber is living in a fantasy world. That was historically a very common military rule, and AFAIK it's still common worldwide, just not in US. IDF is particularly famous for having empty chamber as the standard protocol, which is why this is often colloquially known as "Israeli carry". And you can say a lot of things about IDF, but one thing for sure: they have operational experience.
  - runjake 1y ago
    USAF SF is probably different (if SOP hasn't changed) because USAF SF gets so little time in training. USAF SF also ironically seem to have the largest numbers of disciplinary issues. Your average Marine, even a non-rifleman, has far better firearms training than a USAF SF airman. Disclaimer: I was not SF. I was merely surrounded by them in a very high security environment. :-)
  - 1y ago

Holstered guns shouldn't have a round in the chamber. That's also very negligent.

by _mlbt 1y ago

Holstered guns shouldn't have a round in the chamber. That's also very negligent.

mothballed 1y ago

That's hilarious.

_mlbt 1y ago
I'll admit, that one's just my opinion, since the community is very divided on this and there's no consensus. I feel that the safety versus response time trade off is worth it for me. It could be from my military background, but for me a negligent discharge is one of the worst things I could possibly do with a firearm. I was also raised to never trust a safety and unload my gun when crossing fence lines while hunting.
- mothballed 1y ago
  Fair enough, I can respect the difference in opinion. A couple notes though on the military or hunters ed training safety that might influence their training 1) The safety mechanisms on say a glock are different than on a lot of military rifles soldiers are trained on. An Ar-15/M16 can go off without pulling the trigger if the firing pin gets stuck in the channel. That won't happen with a glock because the safety physically blocks the primer from being struck. Also in theory a free-floating firing pin could maybe somehow get slammed hard enough or slam an abused primer enough to set off some military rifles. 2) Some hunting shotguns or military rifles aren't drop safe. Modern handguns are. 3) A military rifle or hunting rifle generally has the trigger exposed at all times you are carrying it. A CCW handgun, you are not exposing the gun and trigger unless you are about to shoot someone. Now I've never served in the military, other than a rag-tag Kurdish militia. What I would imagine the boot sergeant or whatever they are called do, is tells the soldier they will keep the manual safety on or the weapon unchambered and leave it at that, because explaining the intricacies of a striker-fired pistol vs an M16 to a bunch of barely out of highschoolers from Guam who are already exhausted from sleep deprivation and jarring work-outs would not be terribly productive.
  - avidiax 1y ago
    > An Ar-15/M16 can go off without pulling the trigger if the firing pin gets stuck in the channel. That won't happen with a glock because the safety physically blocks the primer from being struck. This is precisely one of the issues with Gen1 Glocks that was remediated. The firing pin safety prevents the firing pin from moving forward unless the gun is in battery and the trigger is partially depressed. It doesn't force the pin to move backwards if it is jammed forward (due to dirt). A pin that's jammed will slam fire the gun when racked. Always rack in a safe direction.

jakogut 1y ago

Carrying a chambered gun in a holster covering the trigger is not negligent. It's how millions of military, law enforcement, and civilians carry on a daily basis.

mdhb 1y ago
Having one in the chamber IS actually a fucking ridiculous way to carry on a daily basis. That makes sense in a war zone, it makes zero sense walking the streets of any American city. Source: many years of carrying a weapon in a professional capacity.
- mothballed 1y ago
  I would recommend you take an entry level CCW class. There are valid reasons why one would or wouldn't carry with one in the chamber, and opinions can be respected. However, not knowing why it might make sense for someone else to choose indicates severely flawed "professional" knowledge and a deficient education. Most of the 'against' reasons are much stronger with the kind of rifles soldier get drilled on in boot camp, some of whom walk away with a very simplified view of gun safety tailored around their military rifle that is wrongly generalized to modern striker fired CCW pistols. I certainly don't expect I'll be able to address this from someone confidently bragging about years of "professional" experience carrying an unchambered weapon as the only right way to do it on the street, so hopefully you can find a class with someone with a background you respect so it will go through your brain.
  - mdhb 1y ago
    There absolutely are valid reasons. Like I said, patrolling in an active war zone is an example of one. Walking around on base for example isn’t even remotely close to one. This isn’t uniquely an American thing but it’s extremely common in the US in a way that absolutely isn’t in any kind of comparable country. I don’t know what it is exactly, other than maybe the very weird and extremely pervasive “operator mentality” that seems to make everyone extremely horny for pretending situations are much more dangerous than they really are. If you’re going to carry a weapon it’s really a very basic requirement that you can do some reasonable level of threat analysis and respond to the situation around you as it develops. Again, I’m not saying those situations don’t exist where it makes sense but they are absolutely the exception and are a very weird thing to pretend are the default. I think it’s a culture problem and people are just scared.

runjake 1y ago

I won't share my opinions of your statement, but I've seen no information on whether or not there was a round in the chamber at the time of the incident. Regardless, depending on the situation and specifically in the USAF, you are ordered to either carry with a round in the chamber or not, and you'd damned well follow those orders. It's beside the point, but I imagine, based on my own first hand experience, that USAF Security Forces typically carry without a round in the chamber, in most situations. I did Weapons Courier duty and I was ordered to carry a round in the chamber and be "locked and loaded" at all times.

wyldberry 1y ago
It would be wild news if a firearm was able to discharge without a round in chamber. Even without information, for it to discharge there must be a a round in chamber. Marine Corps order for MP and armed guard standard is round in chamber, weapon on safe, slide forward, hammer down. It stands to reason that is the standard case for all military LEO. All that to say, anyone who says you shouldn't have a round in chamber is living in a fantasy world.
- int_19h 1y ago
  > anyone who says you shouldn't have a round in chamber is living in a fantasy world. That was historically a very common military rule, and AFAIK it's still common worldwide, just not in US. IDF is particularly famous for having empty chamber as the standard protocol, which is why this is often colloquially known as "Israeli carry". And you can say a lot of things about IDF, but one thing for sure: they have operational experience.
- runjake 1y ago
  USAF SF is probably different (if SOP hasn't changed) because USAF SF gets so little time in training. USAF SF also ironically seem to have the largest numbers of disciplinary issues. Your average Marine, even a non-rifleman, has far better firearms training than a USAF SF airman. Disclaimer: I was not SF. I was merely surrounded by them in a very high security environment. :-)
- 1y ago