Round in the chamber?

45tex said:

If you ever rode an original CB750 Honda you would understand how it scared Harley into seeking government relief. It was everything a Harley could and still will never be.

Click to expand...

avvidclif said:

Nope but that 6 cylinder rocket Honda made scared a lot of folks.

Click to expand...

45tex said:

The CBX was a Proof of concept model. Never meant to be made in large numbers. It had a huge flaw in that it had trouble getting oil to the outer cylinders. But when it was right it would scare you.
CB in most models back then denoted a base model commuter oriented bike.
I agree with Axxe 55, the 550's were the most fun and could keep up with most anyone else.
Except for a single run into Spokane Wa. on a Kawasaki 750 triple 2 stroke Cafe racer in 1976. I scared myself so bad I had to stop and heave.

Click to expand...

Shady said:

if you want a real honda find a cbr1100xx.

I have owned a few and its got to be the best sport bike ever produced at least for a big dude.

Click to expand...

Asymmetrical said:

There’s only been a million discussions of this subject ever since the advent of the automatic pistol, but why not give it a whirl for the benefit of the relatively new folks?
Carry what you want, however you want, as long as A) you are responsible and able to do so safely, and B) you are competent and skilled enough to make it count when you need it.
And don’t over think it. It’s a pistol, not a Swiss watch. Use common sense, good technique and carry/train/practice often enough to gain reflexive familiarity with your weapon, and you’ll find that it gets easier as you go forward.

Click to expand...

benenglish said:

A holster for people who want to carry without a round in the chamber:

Click to expand...

Vaquero said:

Them good old Remington model 700 rifles.
"Lemme just take it off safety...............

Click to expand...

Whistler said:

I think the Virago was as much if not more threat. V-twin, offset cylinders, overhead cam, shaft drive, etc. Pretty much a Harley with modern engineering.

Don't get me wrong, owned a lot of Harleys but they weren't my first choice for cross country.

Click to expand...

Axxe55 said:

Any pistol that is carried, if unchambered, is essentially an expensive paperweight. If a person is uncomfortable carrying chambered, then IMO they need more practice or training in the area of safety, or they have no business carrying in the first place.

Click to expand...

General Zod said:

I carry with a bill of sale in the chamber...

Click to expand...

F350-6 said:

Perhaps carrying without a round in the chamber is the form of practice they need before they take the next step.

I get all the reasons one should have a round in the chamber, and I have no problem carrying contition 1. But I also know that collectively the members here have centuries of experience carrying with a round in the chamber and never once needing it (yet). So if a new guy wants to spend a couple of weeks or months with an empty chamber before he steps up to loaded, it's a step in the right direction in my mind.

I know how many years I've carried with a round in the chamber and haven't needed to (yet). I assume you've also done the same for at least a couple of weeks so far?

Click to expand...

Mohawk600 said:

I think that operating a pistol takes more skill than a winding Swiss watch....lol

Click to expand...

clawmarks said:

Let me start by saying - this is meant to be a discussion, not an argument. I'd like to share my thought process and learn from yours, I'm not questioning anyone's judgement, needless to say - you can (and should) carry however you feel like is best for you.

Having said that, I'd like to better understand - how come so many people (majority?) are carrying with a round in the chamber?

To me, concealed carry is all about risk management. For me, the gun's purpose is to protect the people I care about, myself, and others when facing extreme circumstances.
That being said, I also understand that in reality the gun can inflict damage to the aforementioned group, so I'm always trying to find a balance. Case in point: Even though I'd like it to be quickly available in the case of intruder, I also don't want it to be available to guests (and/or dwellers) that may lack proper training or judgement - so the final outcome is locking it in a quick access safe instead of just keeping it in a drawer next to my bed.

But that's not the point, I'm here to discuss about a round in the chamber -
What's the difference between carrying with or without it?

The positives: In case you got to the point of presenting the firearm, you're ready to engage without the delay of cocking it. Additionally, if you don't carry S/A D/A or revolver, you gain the benefit of single hand operation.

The negatives: Significantly easier to misfire, riskier in a situations of someone getting their hands on the gun (even without malicious intent), generally can cause a lot more damage in case of any "user error".

Now, I see myself as a responsible gun owner, but I also acknowledge the fact that probably 99.99% of the people that suffered any kind of self-inflicted accidental discharge (whether by themselves, or by someone they care about) also saw themselves this way, so if the entire argument is "it cannot happen to me because I'm me" then there's no actual discussion here.

To me, it's about comparing probabilities - very very low probabilities, but since there's a HUGE damage involved it's important enough to evaluate. It seems to me that the probability of [having to present] x [failing to operate because of the extra step required] is lower than the probability of [any accidental discharge].

What's your take on the subject?

(and again, I'm not trying to prove me/you right/wrong(!), it's about sharing thoughts and learning from each other, if you sensed that I mean something else then please know that I didn't)

Click to expand...