One of the issues which are hotly debated among those who choose to carry a firearm for self defence purposes, or carry a firearm because they work in the security industry, is what condition should the weapon be carried in. Should you load a round into the chamber, or not?
For people who may not be familiar with firearms, it may not be clear what this is all about.
Most modern firearms have some sort of storage container which stores a fixed number of cartridges, usually called a magazine (but it could also be something like a tube running below the barrel, in the case of something like a traditional pump action shotgun).
Magazines are the most common “storage container for cartridges” used in modern weapons. A magazine is a container which feeds stored cartridges into the action of the weapon, as it cycles. Most magazines can be inserted into the weapon, or removed. After firing off all the bullets in the magazine, one can simply remove the empty magazine and replace it with another full one, for example.
However merely inserting a full magazine into the weapon does not necessarily mean the weapon is able to immediately fire, if the trigger is pulled. Because there may not be a cartridge in the chamber, which is separate to the magazine.
The chamber is essentially the entry point to the barrel of the gun. A cartridge needs to be inserted into the chamber, by the loading mechanism of the weapon, before it can be fired.
So if one inserts a magazine into a completely empty weapon, one still has to cycle the action manually to move a cartridge from the magazine into the chamber, to get the weapon into a state where it will fire if the trigger is pulled.
It is thus possible to carry the weapon in two different states:
- With cartridges in the magazine, but nothing in the chamber. Which means that before the weapon can be fired, one first needs to cycle the action manually, to get a round into the chamber. In firearm circles this is called “Condition 3”.
- The second alternative is directly after inserting a magazine, to then manually cycle the action to also load a round into the chamber, and then carry the weapon in that state. Which means that the weapon will be ready to fire immediately. This is called “Condition 1” in firearm circles.
Safety Switches and Drop Safety
Another thing to understand about firearms, which affects this debate, is that some firearms have “safeties”, which are switches or levers which are supposed to prevent the gun from firing, even if there is a round in the chamber ready to fire, for example if the trigger is pulled inadvertently.
In the past, most firearms had these safety switches, which one first had to toggle, into the “off” position, before the gun would fire when you tried to pull the trigger.
In some cases safeties are also supposed to prevent the gun from firing if the mechanism gets jolted, for example if the gun gets dropped, which is a problem for many older designs, and sadly still some newer ones as well. Not all guns are “drop safe”. Some have a history of firing unexpectedly when subject to impact, or other unexpected forces.
It should also be noted that not all safety switches necessarily prevent the gun firing if the action is jolted loose by severe impact.
However Glock particularly changed the way this issue was approached in handgun design. The Glock design philosophy was to build in specific mechanisms which would make it impossible for the gun to fire, if subject to impact due to being dropped or jolted. Which eliminated, in their opinion, the need for external safety switches. So Glock handguns are drop safe, but will fire if the trigger is pulled when there is a round in the chamber, because there are no other safety switches.
This difference in approach potentially affects the debate, because some handguns have safety switches which will prevent them from firing, even when a round is loaded in the chamber. And potentially some of those safety switches will also prevent the gun from firing if it is dropped, with a round in the chamber. Which may make it appear “safer” to carry a weapon with a round in the chamber, because one supposedly has the additional layer of protection provided by the safety switch. One need not worry about the trigger being pulled inadvertently, or if the weapon is dropped, as long as the safety is on.
However the debate is also affected by weapons which are known to be NOT drop safe.
Many older designs of pistols, revolvers, shotguns, and rifles are known to be prone to firing if dropped, or severely jolted, with a round in the chamber.
And some modern handgun models also have a reputation of going off when they should not. So one cannot say this issue is only confined to older designs.
The point here is if you are concerned about the weapon firing unexpectedly, either because it is dropped, or subject to impact, or you do not trust your own trigger discipline and gun handling capabilities, or worry about something hooking on the trigger, then it would be possibly better to carry that weapon without a round in the chamber.
For example, the US military, learned when using pump action shotguns to breach doors in the Iraq wars, that it was best to carry those shotguns in the “dry hull” state. Which means that after firing the weapon, one does not cycle the action to eject the empty cartridge, but instead leave the empty cartridge in the chamber, and carry it in that state, until you need to fire the gun again. One would then cycle the action to eject the empty cartridge and load a fresh one, just before firing the weapon again, when needed. They adopted this method after apparently a number of accidental discharges occurred, when carrying shotguns with a live round in the chamber.
The US police, who carry shotguns in cars frequently apparently have a policy of carrying them in Condition 3, with no round in the chamber, for the same reasons. So that in the event of motor vehicle accident, for example, the gun will not fire unexpectedly, when subject to heavy impact or acceleration.
The Argument Why One Should Carry with a Round in the Chamber
The popular position seems to be one should absolutely carry a round in the chamber for any self defence weapon, because “if attacked suddenly, you may not have enough time to cycle the action before firing”.
The premise is that some attacks happen with very little, or zero warning, and in those situations, potentially the only way you will survive, is to be able to draw and fire within less than a second or so, which does not allow enough time to cycle the action of the weapon first.
Now this argument is based on the reality of some specific cases.
There are indeed attacks which happen in this way, with no warning, where you would need to be able to draw and fire in less than a second or so, to stop that threat with your firearm. You can find examples of live footage of such attacks, on YouTube for example.
So there is no doubt that there are indeed situations where not having a round in the chamber will not allow you enough time to fire at the threat in the time available.
The scenario is basically something like the axe murderer hiding in a bush, or the cupboard, and then jumping out with a deadly swing already half way through, aimed at your head, before you even notice them. In that type of scenario, not having a round in the chamber does not allow you to use your firearm to defend yourself in the time that you have available to react, before you get severely injured or killed.
Thus the prime argument for the need to carry your weapon in Condition 1, is that the additional time needed to cycle the action, to feed a round into the chamber, before you can fire would severely disadvantage you, in some foreseeable self defence situations.
The Argument Against
There is a fundamental difference, obviously, between criminal use of a firearm, as opposed to responsible legal use of a firearm to defend yourself.
And one of the main differences is criminals don’t care who they kill or injure, while responsible citizens do. As a responsible citizen, your use of a firearm for self defense is bound by strict legal constraints. And even more than that, most honourable people are bound by moral constraints. All of which means that you cannot just draw your weapon and fire it indiscriminately at anyone you like!
But criminals are not bound by any such constraints!
That difference is a key point in this debate.
Because, there is a duty of care required by responsible gun owners to ensure they only fire their weapons in self defence, when certain very specific conditions are met. And those conditions are both legal and moral in nature.
The fourth gun safety law effectively encapsulates these principles. An expanded version of that law states that:
You should positively identify your target, as well as take care that bullets fired in that direction will not go on to injure any innocent third parties.
The first part of that gun safety law requires that you “positively identify your target” – which essentially means that you need to ensure that you have satisfied yourself that you are legally and morally justified to shoot at that person, and that you are shooting at the RIGHT person! If any of those requirements are NOT met, then you could not have “positively identified” that person as a valid target!
The second part of that gun safety law requires that if you do fire your weapon in the direction of that positively identified target, you must ensure that no other third parties will be injured as a consequence.
The point here is BEFORE firing your weapon at any perceived threat, one has to take the TIME to positively identify your target, AS WELL AS make sure that no other innocent people in the distance will be injured if you fire your gun in that direction.
Evaluating all of that takes time.
Now, are you sure you will be able to do all of that within the sub-second draw-and-fire time, which popular opinion tells us is what we should be preparing ourselves for, when we carry our weapons with a round in the chamber?
The danger here is if you train yourself to simply draw the weapon and fire at any perceived threat, all within less than a second, and that becomes your conditioned response to anyone giving you a fright, well HOW are you going to still be able to properly evaluate the situation to make sure all the following are true:
- You are faced with a valid self defence situation where if you do nothing, you, or those you have a duty to protect, will be killed, severely injured or raped.
- There are no better options available to you, such as step out of the way of the incoming attack, move to cover or safety, or simply knock the guy out etc.
- You are legally entitled to shoot.
- Your conscience tells you that you are morally justified in shooting.
- You are sure that you are in fact shooting at the right person and it’s not a family member, friend or neighbour you have mistaken for an attacker.
As an illustrative example, imagine a surprise birthday party is staged for you. But when your friends, or colleagues jump out from behind the door yelling “surprise”, are you sure you will not shoot the first poor soul doing so, as you react in genuine shock, because that is how you have trained yourself to react in those circumstances?
The argument against the need to carry a weapon with a round in the chamber boils down to if you ever need to fire your weapon in self defence, in a situation where someone is leaping out of the bushes at you, or some similar scenario, well even in those situations, you still HAVE to take the time to properly evaluate the situation FIRST, in any case, BEFORE you can just instinctively draw and shoot! And thus the time it takes to cycle the round into the chamber from the magazine, while you are trying to work out what in fact is going on, is perhaps NOT the limiting factor!
So the argument against carrying a round in the chamber essentially boils down to perhaps the extreme emphasis on sub-second draw-and-fire is not as necessary as it is made out to be, because you still need to take enough time to decide whether you should shoot or not, as the axe murderer leaps from the cupboard with his axe swinging at your head?
The point is while there are no doubt situations when you will definitely not have the time required to cycle the action first, to get a round into the chamber before you can fire – the BIGGER problem, which is relevant in every case, is that responsible citizens, as opposed to criminals, are obliged to take the TIME to ensure that they are legally and morally entitled to fire, as well as ensure that no third parties will be injured, and that they are in fact not shooting the wrong person by mistake. And to evaluate all of that takes time. And unfortunately for responsible citizens, unlike criminals, they are obliged to take that time in every case.
The argument for carrying a round in the chamber also potentially ignores that there may be other self defence options available, which are not solely predicated upon drawing and firing your gun within a split second. Such as simply stepping out of the way of the incoming strike. Or simply knocking the person out. Or by retreating to cover, or moving to some other safe position. Again, the need for extreme speed in drawing and firing the weapon may be overstated?
So if all of the points made above are accepted, then the absolute need to carry a round in the chamber is perhaps not as urgent as some might think it is?
There is another argument against carrying a round in the chamber, which is also worth mentioning – if your attacker manages to grab your weapon, from you, which does happen quite frequently, then if you do not have a round in the chamber, they will not be able to simply pull the trigger to shoot you immediately, and may not know how to cycle the action themselves, or be slow or inept in doing so. Given that you will know that they do not have a round in the chamber when they took the gun, that gives you a chance to react in a way that gives you a few seconds opportunity, to take back the weapon, or get away, or knock them out, or something like that? This would also apply to the terrible situation where a child manages to get hold of your firearm, perhaps allowing you the opportunity to safely retrieve the weapon from them, before a tragedy occurs.
Lastly, if your preferred mode is to not carry a round in the chamber, but if faced with a situation in which things look very dangerous from the outset, and the risk of imminent attack seems high, there is nothing stopping you from chambering a round as a preparatory precaution, specifically in response to an elevated sense of threat level. So if for example, you are forced to drive through an area which is known to be very dangerous, or you see trouble approaching in some other way, well then one can chamber a round and carry your weapon in Condition 1, temporarily, until you feel the threat has diminished sufficiently to go back to Condition 3?
Conclusions
Ultimately, the conclusion to this debate has to be a personal decision, in which different choices will be made by each person, given their own personal situation, the level of risk they face and other personal priorities.
There is probably not one universal answer to this question which can be considered to be the only “right” answer.
Factors which could affect your decision would include which particular firearm you carry, what your personal skill levels are, what your level of confidence in your safe gun handling capabilities are, what level of daily threat you face, among many other considerations.
If you have high confidence in the safety and reliability of your firearm, when carried with a round in the chamber, together with confidence in your own safe gun handling capabilities, and are carrying the weapon in a high quality Kydex holster, which protects the trigger and holds the weapon firmly and securely in place, as you go about your daily activities, well then there is no reason to believe that carrying the weapon with a round in the chamber is a necessarily unsafe, or a bad option.
But in the same way, if you choose, for whatever reason, to carry your firearm without a round loaded into the chamber, that should also not be seen as a necessarily unsound decision either.
To carry a firearm as a legally armed citizen requires a very high degree of personal responsibility, which you have to consciously accept. It is thus up to you what risks you are willing to take, and how you wish to respond in different circumstances and situations. Whether you feel you prefer to load a round into the chamber, or not, is entirely your decision, because you will ultimately have to be responsible for any consequences of that decision.
But to make that decision thoughtfully, one should consider both sides of this debate.
Which is the point of this article.
