Do you carry with a round in the chamber?

[TGO David]

Being the 1911 man that I am, I think I'll stick with the one that I'm carrying currently and just use the G.L.O.C.K. at the range and/or for one of my house guns.

You should probably sell it now before it goes off by itself and shoots you while you sleep.

I own a 1911, M&P, J-Frame and Glock presently. I have owned a handgun from pretty much every popular make and model over the past 15 or so years. None of them have ever struck me as being any more or less safe than each other. The Glock included.

Every time I see the argument about whether or not a Glock is any less save than another firearm, I remind myself that some people just aren't going to be swayed no matter how convincing the evidence is to the contrary. Some people just won't feel good about a gun unless it has a manual safety on it. And this is exactly why Springfield now produces an XD and Smith & Wesson now produces an M&P with manual safety levers.

Not because they are any more "safe" but because it makes people feel safe.

HanSolo, you need to trade your XD off for one of the new ones with the thumb safety. Gravity may increase exponentially without warning and cause your grip safety to be sucked into the frame thereby allowing an accidental discharge!

[Guest gcrookston]

I just carry the bullets. I leave the gun someplace safe.

(okay, I carry a 340PD, full of bullets).....

[TGO David]

I just carry the bullets. I leave the gun someplace safe.

(okay, I carry a 340PD, full of bullets).....

Yeah but what about primers? Or powder? Huh? Huh? HUH?

[HanSolo]

HanSolo, you need to trade your XD off for one of the new ones with the thumb safety. Gravity may increase exponentially without warning and cause your grip safety to be sucked into the frame thereby allowing an accidental discharge!

Funny.

Although I did sell one of my XD's, but that was only to buy an XDM. I am not saying Glocks are bad, they just aren't for me.

[TGO David]

Funny.

Although I did sell one of my XD's, but that was only to buy an XDM. I am not saying Glocks are bad, they just aren't for me.

It really is about personal preference. I hear so much anti-Glock diatribe (everywhere, not just here) and it's almost always backed up with a statement about some "safer" gun that the person ranting against Glocks owns himself.

I carry my 1911 occasionally but not anywhere as frequently as I do my Glock. I don't feel any more confident that it won't go off inadvertently than I do that my Glock won't. The thumb and grip safeties do nothing to provide me any more peace of mind. Some people see the lack of a manual safety on the Glock as a downfall. I see it as a benefit on a fighting pistol. It's a streamlined system that has been fairly well idiot-proofed in the case of a high stress encounter with minimal reaction time afforded the Glock's operator. One less thing to forget. One less obstacle between pointing and shooting. One less part to stop working at the most inopportune moment.

I'm not bashing XDs. I'm not bashing 1911s. I am bashing the prolific ignorance that says Glocks are bad because Glocks don't have grip safeties or thumb safeties.

[Guest Scottech]

Always condition one.

[Marswolf]

It really is about personal preference. I hear so much anti-Glock diatribe (everywhere, not just here) and it's almost always backed up with a statement about some "safer" gun that the person ranting against Glocks owns himself.

This reminds me of an American Cancer Society commercial back in the 60s (I think). They showed a Bambi clone and explained in kiddie language that smoking is bad for you. At the end, they say , "And why do we talk to you like children? It's because, when we talk to you as adults - you don't listen."

I feel exactly the same way about Glocks. We explain and explain and explain. But you don't listen.

My problem is the pro-Glock diatribe. Glocks are wonderful. Glocks are perfect. Who needs a safe gun - just keep your finger off the trigger. DUH.

[TGO David]

Wow... you know. For a moment there I almost forgot that most of us here are in the practice of carrying anywhere from six to nineteen rounds of pieces of explosives on our person day in and day out. Explosives designed to hurl tiny chunks of metal at hundreds of feet per second with the express purpose of punching holes through flesh and bone. And that for the sole sake of incapacitating a person who has taken it upon themselves to attack us and render bodily harm or death unto us.

I mean... that's serious stuff! Almost as serious as keeping your ****ING FINGER OFF THE ****ING TRIGGER.

Maybe we should carry something that wouldn't hurt us if we were negligent in some way. Like Nerf baseball bats.

[greenego]

After reading all these posts I am starting to understand why I carry a revolver. I am a strong believer in KISS "keep it simple stupid".

[Guest Verbal Kint]

I'm still waiting for my Glock to discharge a round by itself. So far it's a stalemate between the Glock and S&W 642 sitting beside it. They're both loaded and both laying on the dresser... and neither has gone kaboom yet.

This arguement is as gay as the "Guns kill people" debate.

Bottom line... stupidity and carelessness cause the problems. Not the guns... regardless of platform.

[Oh Shoot]

Wow... you know. For a moment there I almost forgot that most of us here are in the practice of carrying anywhere from six to nineteen rounds of pieces of explosives on our person day in and day out. Explosives designed to hurl tiny chunks of metal at hundreds of feet per second with the express purpose of punching holes through flesh and bone. And that for the sole sake of incapacitating a person who has taken it upon themselves to attack us and render bodily harm or death unto us.

I mean... that's serious stuff! Almost as serious as keeping your ****ING FINGER OFF THE ****ING TRIGGER...

LORDY! I never realized these thangs were so gawd awful dangerous!

Hey, you carry a Kahr, you'd BETTER keep one in the chamber. These things are wound so tight, and without as good a hold on slide as a larger semi-auto, racking that first one in by hand is actually somewhat unreliable. And like any semi, only MORE unreliable under stress.

- OS

[Marswolf]

If you carry a better gun, it's less important to keep your, " ****ING FINGER OFF THE ****ING TRIGGER" because it isn't necessary to do that.

Personally, I never keep my ****ING FINGER OFF THE ****ING TRIGGER. on patrol. Don't know any of my folks who do that. But they are military folks, not civilians. I don't do that in civilian life either. Mindless carry-over I guess....

Personally, I keep my ****ING FINGER on the trigger where it belongs on a properly designed handgun. I buy the proper weapon for the purpose. I don't by an inferior weapon and try to compensate for it.

[Guest Verbal Kint]

Wow. Hate Glocks much?

I've always been taught to be mindful of trigger placement. Granted I've never been on any jungle hunts, so that may very well be a different scenario. However, if you're in combat and toting around a handgun at the ready... I think you have other problems to worry about, rather than finger placement.

Otherwise, I'm not too worried about resting my finger on the trigger of an AR or similar assault rifle.

Back to the Glocks... and civilian carry (since 90% or more of this site is civilian-based), I always keep my finger on the side of the slide... out of the trigger guard unless I'm firing or in the process of firing. It's common sense, and one of the cardinal rules. If I'm not shooting, the gun remains in my holster -- which nulls the entire argument anyway.

You say Glocks are inferior. I say people are stupid, careless, untrained, or have very bad habits. A Glock is no better/worse than any other number of handguns. It is different, however, in the safety systems that it utilizes.

If you hate Glocks, that's one thing. There are guns out there that I hate, for various reasons. But to say they're inferior is biased opinion at best. If they were so horrible they wouldn't have the market base that they do, and LEO/Mil agencies around the world wouldn't use them. Yes, they're cheap... people buy from the lowest bidder... but not at the cost that they're going to kill all of their owners.

[HanSolo]

..fairly well idiot-proofed...

Are you trying to say something here?

Is that way all the gangsters carry them?

[Marswolf]

Wow. Hate Glocks much?

I just think that the "Keep your finger off of the trigger" thing is Sooooooo dumb as to be worthy of ridicule.

What I carry clearly resembles a Glock in practice, but I have options. Those options are important, as a professional and define the difference between Glock carriers and professional carriers. I know of no - no, none, nada - non LE packers who carry a Glock professionally rather than a H&K or SIG or Beretta. And lots of the LE packers would carry something else if it wasn't for bureaucratic interference.

Glocks are just very marginal handguns in professional circles. Sorry, that's just how it is. For any given purpose, there is a better choice than a Glock. That's a truism in the professional world.

[Guest Mugster]

Yeah, a common false belief. It's the compression and decompression of the spring that causes it to wear out after probably thousands of cycles. Simply subtracting two rounds from it will do nothing to reduce wear.

That doesn't have anything to do with it (well probably). In a .45, I carry 1 in the pipe and 6 in the mag. The first round is held differently and has a higher tendency to misfeed. Varies by platform, but usually that last round is tough to get in there. I could care less about spring life...I have a .30 cal ammo can full of springs.

[Guest Mugster]

As for the poll, I voted yes. But, I also carry with no round in the pipe occasionally. It's a personal choice, and I think it's not good to bash those who choose to do this. Even carrying unloaded (like something permanently in a car) with a mag close by might make some sense.

[Guest unreconstructed1]

I plan on carryin in condition 16, also known as "DC carry". basically, I keep the frame and slide in seperate holsters, with a pouch to hold all the springs and rods inside. I keep my bullets in a magazine pouch, and the casings in a separate one. I keep my gun powder in my shirt pocket, and I have a small re-loading press in an ankle hoster. you want to talk about fast, if the need arises, I can have my gun ready to fire in 27 minues flat. surely that's plenty of time to fend of a BG ain't it?

[Guest eyebedam]

Yes always 1 in the chamber, if I didnt do that I guess I could carry some rocks in my pocket to throw at the BG.

[TGO David]

Are you trying to say something here?

Is that way all the gangsters carry them?

Idiot Proof, Stupid Proof, Murphy Proof... all are pithy little terms that get thrown around to illustrate that care has been taken by the designers of a system to make sure that it is operable by the lowest common denominator. I can assure you that I wasn't calling anyone in particular stupid, but merely pointing out that we all are just essentially monkeys with a few evolutionary notches on our belts.

The problem with monkeys is that sooner or later, one of them will figure out how to put a banana up it's ass despite the fact that the banana's designer didn't intend for it to go there.

Same thing with Glocks and safeties.

Verbal more or less stated it here...

You say Glocks are inferior. I say people are stupid, careless, untrained, or have very bad habits. A Glock is no better/worse than any other number of handguns. It is different, however, in the safety systems that it utilizes.

He just failed to invoke the monkey analogy.

I just think that the "Keep your finger off of the trigger" thing is Sooooooo dumb as to be worthy of ridicule.

Far better men than I have been known to use that as a cardinal rule of handgun safety. Jeff Cooper comes to mind. Not saying that he ever walked on water, but I think he knew a thing or two about firearms.

I know of no - no, none, nada - non LE packers who carry a Glock professionally rather than a H&K or SIG or Beretta

Glocks are just very marginal handguns in professional circles. Sorry, that's just how it is. For any given purpose, there is a better choice than a Glock. That's a truism in the professional world.

I can think of a half dozen examples of professionals operating in Iraq as hired guns who are carrying Glocks. This based on the photographs that I've seen of them with Glocks in their ready gear. Maybe they were issued to them by their contract employer. Regardless, they are carried.

If HK were the end all be all of firearms, everyone who had a clue would own them right? I find it hard to believe that so many LEOs do own Glocks privately as well as carry the ones they are issued rather than choosing something "better". Not every cop is a gun enthusiast, but not every isn't either. There are a lot of cops on gun forums and a lot of them own Glocks. Maybe they just aren't as professional as the people you speak of.

Or maybe the tool that fits your general scenerio of operation is best for that application, whereas the Glock (and others like it) are best for a different application. Frankly I haven't a clue if that's true or not. I'm just trying to give the benefit of the doubt here since obviously you know a metric ****-ton more about running and gunning in a jungle environment than I do.

If you hate Glocks, that's one thing. There are guns out there that I hate, for various reasons. But to say they're inferior is biased opinion at best. If they were so horrible they wouldn't have the market base that they do, and LEO/Mil agencies around the world wouldn't use them. Yes, they're cheap... people buy from the lowest bidder... but not at the cost that they're going to kill all of their owners.

Well actually that may be the idea... but the way the population keeps exploding, Glock has been fortunate enough not to run out of customers just yet.

[Guest YANKEE2500]

May as well leave the gun at home if it's not ready to go when you need it. John

[Marswolf]

The Kool-Aid is strong Obi-Wan Kenobi.

[The Average Joe]

Wow...Didn't realize how easy it was to stir the pot with the mere mention of Glock.

I guess you learn through experience?

(hides Glock behind his back and backs away slowly)

[Fallguy]

This reminds me of an American Cancer Society commercial back in the 60s (I think). They showed a Bambi clone and explained in kiddie language that smoking is bad for you. At the end, they say , "And why do we talk to you like children? It's because, when we talk to you as adults - you don't listen."

I feel exactly the same way about Glocks. We explain and explain and explain. But you don't listen.

My problem is the pro-Glock diatribe. Glocks are wonderful. Glocks are perfect. Who needs a safe gun - just keep your finger off the trigger. DUH.

Sorry for the late reply....

Up to thay point in the thread I don't think he was being so much "pro-Glock" as simply "anti-anti-Glock" at least without a more resonable argument other than the lack of an external safety.

I don't think my glock is the perfect wepaon, but I don't think it is any more less perfect than most others either.

[Marswolf]

I don't think my glock is the perfect wepaon, but I don't think it is any more less perfect than most others either.

You make my point for me. Google Glock KaBoom. And also look at all of the NDs reported with Glocks. From what I see and read, there are quite a few guns more perfect than a Glock. The evidence is there, but ignored for some reason.

Glocks are a reasonably price handgun that solves some problems for LEO carry. They don't have a safety that officers forget to remove in adrenalin flow and they don't have a hammer that scares the public. But does that really make them the best gun for LE use? And if it is not a duty weapon, is it really even a good choice for carry by the public?