Why carry at all then.
Why carry at all then.
I started out with handguns the same way. In my case, it was with a Browning BDM with ambi manual safety. It helped me get comfortable with daily carrying, with draw/reholster drills, and with all-around acceptance that the gun wasn't going to "bite" for minor, casual missteps. For me, it was the right path to take. I spent 2yrs studying the statutes, gaining experience and competency shooting and carrying holstered (legally on my own property only), at which point I felt very comfortable when the worries were behind me by the time I applied for CHL.
Of course, a gun absolutely can do that, if one's technique isn't fairly perfect and the gun allows for minor missteps to bite you. Ultra-light triggers combine with lack of manual safety mechanisms to, IMO, make for a less-safe gun. All makers take some pains to avoid the obvious risk points, and IIRC all modern handguns are legally required to come with key safety features to help avoid such problems.
Still, you're not ready until you're ready. That'll come with experience with that specific weapon, comfort and skill with drawing safely and effectively, competent reholstering while observing all the gun handling safety guidelines. Don't rush it. The comfort level will come, in time.
I'd recommend getting some hands-on, focused instruction by a competent "pistols" instructor, someone who can help you rapidly acquire the basic skills and competency that'll rapidly win over your confidence level.
I had many years of safety on training drilled into me and it took me a while before I was comfortable carrying chambered.
And I would down vote all of these comments that are so negative if I had that option.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I took my training, got my gun, did my research and was told/read that carrying with one in the chamber of my striker-fired weapon was safe (if properly handled) and the correct and most effective way to carry it.
It never phased me a bit. I had no pre-conceived notions of 'more dangerous.' To me, the firearm itself was only as dangerous as I was. And I took my committment to carrying very seriously.
I could be totally wrong about the Israelis, but I can assure you that the US military distinguishes SIGNIFICANTLY between what Special Operations forces do and what "regular GI's" do, in many respects. Your point about the sidearm being a secondary weapon is a good one, but it brings up the question: how do Israeli troops carry their rifles? My guess--and that's all it is--is that soldiers considered to be on duty in an environment requiring the fastest reaction are directed or allowed to chamber a round. Everybody else is *probably* carrying empty chamber.
It wouldn't bother me one iota to be proven wrong, but I suspect my estimate is correct.
I don't fully understand the tendency of some posters here to consider the OP to be a raw incompetent at best, just because he chooses to carry as he does. An "expensive brick," for God's sake? It is beyond question that SD reaction time is sometimes zero, in which case it doesn't always suffice to be carrying a gun in each hand, fingers on triggers. It is also beyond question that loaded gun with empty chamber would prove sufficient in many instances. The OP feels comfortable at that point on the readiness spectrum, others don't. Everyone here is free to make his own choice, right?
I chose my carry gun based on the same logic. Everyone pushed me to glock however after renting many guns I decided I was not comfortable carrying a striker fired gun with one in the pipe. I was very comfortable with revolvers however I did not like the capacity restriction. I started looking at da/sa pistols however I just did not like the sa mode. I ended up renting a Sig p250 and loved it. I especially liked the flat exposed hammer. I place my thumb over the hammer to press it into the holster. This is what i am comfortable with. Everyone is different.
All that said, the military in general is not a good example of what's safe or tactically sound. I encountered personnel on numerous occasions (Army troops and Navy aircrews) carrying rifles or handguns who did not possess a single round of ammunition. Some army bases downrange would require us to carry a weapon at all times with an empty magwell, filling the weapon's internals with crud and dust. Remember 99% of the US military, even in deployed locations, does not EVER leave the safety of a heavily fortified installation. Their procedures are adapted accordingly. Comparing to a citizen carrying a concealed defensive weapon is not a valid comparison.
I guess what I'm saying with is that for a variety of reasons military practices, Israeli or otherwise, are probably not the best choice for a civillian carrier to adopt.
Often you will see Israeli soldiers walking around shopping and having lunch carrying only a rifle and the magazine will be completely out of the rifle.
Possibly some Glock owners should mimic that mode of Israeli rifle carry. Chamber empty and magazine tucked in a pocket. Why not be EXTRA EXTRA safe?
It will probably only take a couple of extra seconds to get magazine out of the pocket and inserted into the firearm and then just another fraction of a second to rack the slide.
My only real serious point being that we are not the Israeli military and that the Glock/Empty Chamber carry is really an issue that can be easily resolved by getting qualified training/instruction with competent professionals.
Also please don't assume that I truly care how individuals that I do not know personally carry their firearm in whatever condition they want to carry it in.
Whatever floats your boat is O-Kee-Doke-Kee with me. Knock yourself out.
I can only offer advice as to their situation as I understand it. Certainly I would never insist that any person carry with a round chambered if they lack the confidence to do so.
They wouldn't pay any attention to me if I insisted anyway. I am just fingers on a keyboard.
I can only absolutely state as a fact that proper training builds all areas of confidence.