My 2 cents: I don't care what one does as long as they do no harm to innocent folks. With that said, IMO you are delusional if you think you are just as fast or fast enough in every situation than a person that carries one in the chamber.
Isreali method: I have worked with some Isreali's and they do carry one in the chamber.
I disagree with statements to the effect that if you are not comftorable carrying one in the chamber you should not carry. It is not my life so it is none of my business.
I do not see any advantage to not carrying one the chamber. If it is a confidence issue and you are carrying to protect your loved one then you should really think the method of carrying, not whether you should carry.
And last but not least...
Yeager? Take a look at his history, I think anyone who puts his word on a pedestal just doesn't know any better.
What about his history dont you like? Ever trained with him? Have you taken any professional training?
This thread seems to be long on arguments and short on statistics. Do we have a collection of tragedies (sorry, citing one or two isn't going to cut it) for chambered vs unchambered? Do we have verifiable details on any of these tragedies, sufficient to support that it could have been averted only by carrying empty? Can the other group of tragedies be attributed strictly to a chambered round with no other mitigating shenanigans? If switches, levers, and all manner of external safeties can be defeated by a chronic case of Stupid, then I see no guarantees coming from carrying with an empty chamber.
Stupidity and carelessness are the key ingredients to negligent discharge; and the law of averages will eventually catch up with the stupid and careless whether they have a round chambered or not. A gun is a gun, a car is a car, a power tool is a power tool; only a PERSON can achieve the status of "safe."
I'm well aware of what my statements were, and also the fact that they seem to have flown straight over your head.
What do we have to support the apparent mass numbers of people who would be out of luck if they hadn't had a round chambered? Again, there are some... but what numbers are larger, the ones who have shot someone because their gun fired (ND/AD whatever) or the ones who's failed to protect themselves because of an empty chamber? Nobody knows.
Also, in Yaeger's opening comments he says something along the lines of round chambered, safety on (cocked and locked)... Safety On.
How many of you carry a gun that has a manual safety? Not many, in fact most of you seem to choose guns without a manual safety. Pretty sure he's a Glock fan, where's the safety to turn on there? His words are a bit misleading.
A C3 gun is much better than no gun at all.
Well all depends on the situation at that moment I guess but if right at the moment you need to fire your weapon it will be a little late to fix it then.
Yes it is everyone's choice as to the way they carry does not effect me in the least but not having the confidence to carry one in the chamber shows a lack of training, experience and knowledge but again that is on them not me.
I think Yeager is a tool... take a look at his history, I think anyone who puts his word on a pedestal is quite possibly a tool as well.
Well I don't put anyone's word on a pedestal except the man upstairs. I read, watch and evaluate what different folks in the training industry say and teach. I take away from that what "I" consider useful and file the rest away. This includes Costa, Haley, Ayoob and whomever else I find interesting.
As far as Yeager's history there are only two things that come to mind. The ambush in Iraq and the camera guy downrange. First Iraq, I watched the video and read the AAR's. I have driven and ridden that exact route on more than one occasion and my opinion is this. Until you have been on the receiving end of a PKM belt fed machine gun in an unarmored vehicle with guys headshot beside you I personally would be a little hesitant to judge but that is just me.
The camera guy downrange. Well this has been hashed and rehashed. Obviously the guy knows what he is doing as he is still alive and kicking. He must pick students that he feels comfortable with and who can shoot, again he is alive and kicking. I train and shoot with other people down range and I am downrange with other people shooting. I trust their abilities and they trust mine. It all depends on what you are comfortable with doing and with whom.
As an example, the first day on the range here I assisted with a class with some young soldiers. The class was taught by an SF Major. When the class was over we decided to keep on shooting since we had the pistol ammo available. The range rules were simple you stay on your side of the range I will stay on mine. He shot at 5 yards I shot at 25with my AK. I moved to the 3 with my pistol, he was firing his M4 at 10, we were about 20 feet apart but in my world it is just another day at the office.
If you don't like what Yeager teaches simply don't train with him, don't watch his videos and so on. I have never trained with him but I will when I am in the states long enough to do it. Who knows it might be good stuff but I can assure you I will come away with something good and again I will simply file away the rest that does not apply or work for me.