Holy Bullet Setback, Batman!

[Seismic Sam]

I'm not going to try and take sides here, or get into any of the issues that have already been brought up, but an interesting thought does come to mind. If you're a staunch, 100% OC'er, there could be an upside to carrying without one in the chamber, provided you have a BUG or clip knife you can get to in a second. If people see you have a gun, they may try to jump you to get hold of it, to either steal the gun and/or rob you, and what happens if you attention level drops from high yellow to low yellow like those of us who mostly carry concealed? It's possible the gun could get grabbed from you if it's out there in the open, particularly in a OWB rig, and if that ever happened, it would be worth the price of admission to see the expression on the perp's face as he pulled the trigger and it goes klik!! about the time your bug fires or your clip knife comes in at his throat.

Unfortunately, preparing for that eventuality looks to be pretty low odds to me compared to keeping the element of surprise, particularly if your attacker is armed, and may not see the gun to begin with. Just because it's out there doesn't mean everybody, or even most people see it. When I OC'ed at the Lake Harriet Pavilion for Joel's OC picnics, only about 5% of the people noticed as far as I could tell, and you really can't count on some thug with a low IQ being that much more observant if he thinks you're a good target and comes in at you.

[XDM45]

I'm not going to try and take sides here, or get into any of the issues that have already been brought up, but an interesting thought does come to mind. If you're a staunch, 100% OC'er, there could be an upside to carrying without one in the chamber, provided you have a BUG or clip knife you can get to in a second. If people see you have a gun, they may try to jump you to get hold of it, to either steal the gun and/or rob you, and what happens if you attention level drops from high yellow to low yellow like those of us who mostly carry concealed? It's possible the gun could get grabbed from you if it's out there in the open, particularly in a OWB rig, and if that ever happened, it would be worth the price of admission to see the expression on the perp's face as he pulled the trigger and it goes klik!! about the time your bug fires or your clip knife comes in at his throat.

Unfortunately, preparing for that eventuality looks to be pretty low odds to me compared to keeping the element of surprise, particularly if your attacker is armed, and may not see the gun to begin with. Just because it's out there doesn't mean everybody, or even most people see it. When I OC'ed at the Lake Harriet Pavilion for Joel's OC picnics, only about 5% of the people noticed as far as I could tell, and you really can't count on some thug with a low IQ being that much more observant if he thinks you're a good target and comes in at you.

Good point Sam, and one I hadn't thought of.

[Erik_Pakieser]

I carry a 9mm and also see bullet setback. I haven't bothered to keep track of how many chamberings it takes to cause a setback. Every time I clear my chamber I compare the round's length to the next one in the magazine. If it's the same, I keep using it, if it's set back I replace it. I also make it a habit to regularly shoot off my carry ammo and replace it with new stuff.

On carrying without a round in the chamber:

I've met a lot of people who start off carrying with an empty chamber for their own peace of mind. While I don't agree with that, you have to start somewhere.

The problem I see with carrying on an empty chamber is there is no guarantee you will have your other hand available when you need to draw and shoot. If the encounter happens at close range, you will likely be using your non-shooting hand to fend off an attack.

As for the "Israelis do it" argument: this is a hold-over from when every gun in Israel was smuggled in. The fledgling IDF had a wide variety of pistols in different states of reliability. To streamline training and create a cushion of safety the empty-chamber carry was standardized. Today, however, many IDF units carry with a round in the chamber. The empty chamber carry is still around in the IDF out of a sense of tradition more than anything else.

When I was trained in the Israeli method (about 15 years ago), we learned to rack the slide with our non-shooting hand when drawing. If your non-shooting hand was busy, you racked the slide by catching the rear sight on your belt or holster (the classic "wounded" method). According to my IDF instructor that was the only purpose for sights on Israeli handguns - the method had a strong emphasis on point shooting

The problem with this is that many pistols made today have low-profile sights that make this very difficult. You can try catching the ejection port on your belt but has a tendency to cause a malfunction. The method I teach for racking the slide while wounded - dropping to your knees and racking the slide by pinching it between your thigh and calf - isn't really practical for a speed draw.

Anyway, I won't personally condemn someone who carries with an empty chamber, but I would expect someone who makes that decision to become very good at racking the slide on the draw - both two handed and one-handed, and consider how difficult it would be to rack the slide while fighting off an attacker with your non-shooting hand. With a modern handgun, there is no reason not to carry with a loaded chamber.

[XDM45]

I carry a 9mm and also see bullet setback. I haven't bothered to keep track of how many chamberings it takes to cause a setback. Every time I clear my chamber I compare the round's length to the next one in the magazine. If it's the same, I keep using it, if it's set back I replace it. I also make it a habit to regularly shoot off my carry ammo and replace it with new stuff.

On carrying without a round in the chamber:

I've met a lot of people who start off carrying with an empty chamber for their own peace of mind. While I don't agree with that, you have to start somewhere.

The problem I see with carrying on an empty chamber is there is no guarantee you will have your other hand available when you need to draw and shoot. If the encounter happens at close range, you will likely be using your non-shooting hand to fend off an attack.

As for the "Israelis do it" argument: this is a hold-over from when every gun in Israel was smuggled in. The fledgling IDF had a wide variety of pistols in different states of reliability. To streamline training and create a cushion of safety the empty-chamber carry was standardized. Today, however, many IDF units carry with a round in the chamber. The empty chamber carry is still around in the IDF out of a sense of tradition more than anything else.

When I was trained in the Israeli method (about 15 years ago), we learned to rack the slide with our non-shooting hand when drawing. If your non-shooting hand was busy, you racked the slide by catching the rear sight on your belt or holster (the classic "wounded" method). According to my IDF instructor that was the only purpose for sights on Israeli handguns - the method had a strong emphasis on point shooting

The problem with this is that many pistols made today have low-profile sights that make this very difficult. You can try catching the ejection port on your belt but has a tendency to cause a malfunction. The method I teach for racking the slide while wounded - dropping to your knees and racking the slide by pinching it between your thigh and calf - isn't really practical for a speed draw.

Anyway, I won't personally condemn someone who carries with an empty chamber, but I would expect someone who makes that decision to become very good at racking the slide on the draw - both two handed and one-handed, and consider how difficult it would be to rack the slide while fighting off an attacker with your non-shooting hand. With a modern handgun, there is no reason not to carry with a loaded chamber.

Some food for thought in there both for and against Condition 3 / Israeli Carry. Thank you for that; and for a respectful post. Some others on here could learn from you in that area. The ONLY reason I don't carry chambered (for now) is dealing with setback and it's safer in one regard, more dangerous / risky in another, both points I've made before, both points I've been slammed for. I could make the point that carrying different guns and using different holsters is dangerous (ala Tex Grebner), so no matter what, there's risks in life, and with guns. It's about what risks are you willing to accept, how you train and what for, etc.

My point of THIS post is, thank you for a good post, respectful, and one that actually adds food for thought to both sides of the point to carry loaded or not. Posts like this are valued, vs. the ones where others slam people for their opinions and practices. I encourage those who dislike me and my posts to ignore me, and encourage others who can post good info with respect, to do so. Thank you Erik again for good info and respect.

[jshuberg]

With all due respect man, I think you're wrong on this. You can try to rationalize the decision to carry with an empty chamber, but you're the first person I've ever heard state that the reason for doing so was bullet setback. Most people cite safety concerns, but neither of those arguments can justify carrying a pistol in an unready state. Especially during open carry.

Bullets *can* setback after numerous rechamberings, but the dangers involved are incredibly overhyped. In fact I've never heard of a single credible incident where bullet setback was determined to be the cause of an injury. I do think its a good idea to shoot and replace your carry rounds after rechambering them a couple dozen times, but that's out of an abundance of caution, and more to prevent failure to extract malfunctions from a damaged case rim than setback. It's visually obvious when you need to replace your carry rounds, and it's simply not a reasonable decision to carry empty because of it.

Additionally, a modern pistol is just as safe with one in the pipe, carried in a proper holster than one with an empty chamber. Any belief that an empty chamber is safer is just plain wrong. In fact it presumptively violates the main rule of firearm safety - to treat every weapon as if its loaded. The peace of mind a person may get from an empty chamber has nothing to do with the weapon actually being safer, but the shooter actually being *less* safe by intentionally making a distinction between a loaded and unloaded firearm.

A pistol has a simple and singular purpose - to shoot bullets. Anything that interferes with that is a malfunction, either mechanical, or operator error. An empty magazine is the most common type of malfunction people experience, in that while in that state it's incapable of functioning properly. Most people don't view an empty mag as a malfunction, but it actually is when you think about it.

I would similarly consider carrying with an empty chamber to be carrying a weapon in a malfunctioned state, as while in that state it's not capable of firing. I would personally never consider carrying a pistol I know to have a double feed, stovepipe, or any other malfunction, and that would include an empty chamber. Carrying with an empty chamber is basically a failure to feed malfunction, only rather than the cause being a mechanical defect, it was caused by operator error. Why would you want to carry a weapon in a state where you need to remediate a malfunction before its capable of firing?

I know there are a lot of people that give you crap for open carrying. That's a decision where both sides have merit, and just because most people don't agree with your decision doesn't necessarily make you wrong. This however is not that type of situation. There's simply no merit to carrying empty, not with a modern and well maintained firearm.

I highly recommend that you reconsider your decision, especially when open carrying. Carrying a weapon in an unready state simply isn't a reasonable option, no matter what the circumstance.

[xd ED]

If chambering a round once causes set back there is something wrong; either improperly built ammo, a faulty, or poorly designed firearm, or the wrong ammo for the gun.
Carrying a chambered round of correctly built ammo, in a properly functioning firearm will not cause set back.
If someone wishes to suggest otherwise, I'd like to hear how setback occurs in the chambered round.
I suspect one would have to pound the butt of the pistol on the ground, or some similar hard, stable surface to get setback to occur in the chambered round as it won't happen in a holstered pistol.
Therefore if, as suggested, the act of chambering - a necessity to fire a gun - is the issue, then the only safe choice is not tho carry the out of spec/ mismatched gun/ ammo, not how best to justify the carry of faulty equipment.

[Rem700]

I cant grasp the thought process.

If you carry empty chamber and chamber a round just prior to fireing how do you know the round you just chambered didnt just setback

[XDM45]

With all due respect man, I think you're wrong on this. You can try to rationalize the decision to carry with an empty chamber, but you're the first person I've ever heard state that the reason for doing so was bullet setback. Most people cite safety concerns, but neither of those arguments can justify carrying a pistol in an unready state. Especially during open carry.

Bullets *can* setback after numerous rechamberings, but the dangers involved are incredibly overhyped. In fact I've never heard of a single credible incident where bullet setback was determined to be the cause of an injury. I do think its a good idea to shoot and replace your carry rounds after rechambering them a couple dozen times, but that's out of an abundance of caution, and more to prevent failure to extract malfunctions from a damaged case rim than setback. It's visually obvious when you need to replace your carry rounds, and it's simply not a reasonable decision to carry empty because of it.

Additionally, a modern pistol is just as safe with one in the pipe, carried in a proper holster than one with an empty chamber. Any belief that an empty chamber is safer is just plain wrong. In fact it presumptively violates the main rule of firearm safety - to treat every weapon as if its loaded. The peace of mind a person may get from an empty chamber has nothing to do with the weapon actually being safer, but the shooter actually being *less* safe by intentionally making a distinction between a loaded and unloaded firearm.

A pistol has a simple and singular purpose - to shoot bullets. Anything that interferes with that is a malfunction, either mechanical, or operator error. An empty magazine is the most common type of malfunction people experience, in that while in that state it's incapable of functioning properly. Most people don't view an empty mag as a malfunction, but it actually is when you think about it.

I would similarly consider carrying with an empty chamber to be carrying a weapon in a malfunctioned state, as while in that state it's not capable of firing. I would personally never consider carrying a pistol I know to have a double feed, stovepipe, or any other malfunction, and that would include an empty chamber. Carrying with an empty chamber is basically a failure to feed malfunction, only rather than the cause being a mechanical defect, it was caused by operator error. Why would you want to carry a weapon in a state where you need to remediate a malfunction before its capable of firing?

I know there are a lot of people that give you crap for open carrying. That's a decision where both sides have merit, and just because most people don't agree with your decision doesn't necessarily make you wrong. This however is not that type of situation. There's simply no merit to carrying empty, not with a modern and well maintained firearm.

I highly recommend that you reconsider your decision, especially when open carrying. Carrying a weapon in an unready state simply isn't a reasonable option, no matter what the circumstance.

Fair enough. As I said, my only concern is setback and not wanting the thing to blow up in my hands, and that's the ONLY reason I don't carry with one in the pipe. Perhaps I just need to research it more and do some experiments with my gun for my own peace of mind.

[xd ED]

I cant grasp the thought process.

If you carry empty chamber and chamber a round just prior to fireing how do you know the round you just chambered didnt just setback

You are reasoning, and being logical...and kinda boiled by post down to one line...

[XDM45]

I cant grasp the thought process.

If you carry empty chamber and chamber a round just prior to fireing how do you know the round you just chambered didnt just setback

You are reasoning, and being logical...and kinda boiled by post down to one line...

You don't know it didn't setback, true.... however, I think the chance of setback happening when chambering a round one time, is much less so then if you chamber the same round over and over again.

[Rem700]

With all due respect man, I think you're wrong on this. You can try to rationalize the decision to carry with an empty chamber, but you're the first person I've ever heard state that the reason for doing so was bullet setback. Most people cite safety concerns, but neither of those arguments can justify carrying a pistol in an unready state. Especially during open carry.

Bullets *can* setback after numerous rechamberings, but the dangers involved are incredibly overhyped. In fact I've never heard of a single credible incident where bullet setback was determined to be the cause of an injury. I do think its a good idea to shoot and replace your carry rounds after rechambering them a couple dozen times, but that's out of an abundance of caution, and more to prevent failure to extract malfunctions from a damaged case rim than setback. It's visually obvious when you need to replace your carry rounds, and it's simply not a reasonable decision to carry empty because of it.

Additionally, a modern pistol is just as safe with one in the pipe, carried in a proper holster than one with an empty chamber. Any belief that an empty chamber is safer is just plain wrong. In fact it presumptively violates the main rule of firearm safety - to treat every weapon as if its loaded. The peace of mind a person may get from an empty chamber has nothing to do with the weapon actually being safer, but the shooter actually being *less* safe by intentionally making a distinction between a loaded and unloaded firearm.

A pistol has a simple and singular purpose - to shoot bullets. Anything that interferes with that is a malfunction, either mechanical, or operator error. An empty magazine is the most common type of malfunction people experience, in that while in that state it's incapable of functioning properly. Most people don't view an empty mag as a malfunction, but it actually is when you think about it.

I would similarly consider carrying with an empty chamber to be carrying a weapon in a malfunctioned state, as while in that state it's not capable of firing. I would personally never consider carrying a pistol I know to have a double feed, stovepipe, or any other malfunction, and that would include an empty chamber. Carrying with an empty chamber is basically a failure to feed malfunction, only rather than the cause being a mechanical defect, it was caused by operator error. Why would you want to carry a weapon in a state where you need to remediate a malfunction before its capable of firing?

I know there are a lot of people that give you crap for open carrying. That's a decision where both sides have merit, and just because most people don't agree with your decision doesn't necessarily make you wrong. This however is not that type of situation. There's simply no merit to carrying empty, not with a modern and well maintained firearm.

I highly recommend that you reconsider your decision, especially when open carrying. Carrying a weapon in an unready state simply isn't a reasonable option, no matter what the circumstance.

Fair enough. As I said, my only concern is setback and not wanting the thing to blow up in my hands, and that's the ONLY reason I don't carry with one in the pipe. Perhaps I just need to research it more and do some experiments with my gun for my own peace of mind.

Dont blame you one bit for not wanting a gun to blow up in your hand.

I dont normally unload my firearm on a daily basis so the round normally just remains in the chamber unless I go to the range or it gets unloaded for its monthly cleaning.
In nearly 30yrs of shooting 45acp in a 1911 I have experienced 0 setback.
Since I have recently changed brand of carry ammo I will keep an eye on it for awhile and if no problems I will not let it concern me. YMMV

OC isnt for me but I do enjoy the amount of people I see in Az that OC hopefully in time it will be more common every place.

[xd ED]

I cant grasp the thought process.

If you carry empty chamber and chamber a round just prior to fireing how do you know the round you just chambered didnt just setback

You are reasoning, and being logical...and kinda boiled by post down to one line...

You don't know it didn't setback, true.... however, I think the chance of setback happening when chambering a round one time, is much less so then if you chamber the same round over and over again.

Actually you could know whether or not it setback after chambering once:
Measure and mark 10/ 100/ 1000 rds. Chamber and eject them, remeasure and note any discrepancies.

And all that has NOTHING to do with carrying a chambered round, or not.
It's a pretty simple process not to chamber the same round "...over and over again."
There is nothing reasonable about this as an argument to not carry a loaded chamber.
For whatever your motivations, it is a false rationalization.

[XDM45]

With all due respect man, I think you're wrong on this. You can try to rationalize the decision to carry with an empty chamber, but you're the first person I've ever heard state that the reason for doing so was bullet setback. Most people cite safety concerns, but neither of those arguments can justify carrying a pistol in an unready state. Especially during open carry.

Bullets *can* setback after numerous rechamberings, but the dangers involved are incredibly overhyped. In fact I've never heard of a single credible incident where bullet setback was determined to be the cause of an injury. I do think its a good idea to shoot and replace your carry rounds after rechambering them a couple dozen times, but that's out of an abundance of caution, and more to prevent failure to extract malfunctions from a damaged case rim than setback. It's visually obvious when you need to replace your carry rounds, and it's simply not a reasonable decision to carry empty because of it.

Additionally, a modern pistol is just as safe with one in the pipe, carried in a proper holster than one with an empty chamber. Any belief that an empty chamber is safer is just plain wrong. In fact it presumptively violates the main rule of firearm safety - to treat every weapon as if its loaded. The peace of mind a person may get from an empty chamber has nothing to do with the weapon actually being safer, but the shooter actually being *less* safe by intentionally making a distinction between a loaded and unloaded firearm.

A pistol has a simple and singular purpose - to shoot bullets. Anything that interferes with that is a malfunction, either mechanical, or operator error. An empty magazine is the most common type of malfunction people experience, in that while in that state it's incapable of functioning properly. Most people don't view an empty mag as a malfunction, but it actually is when you think about it.

I would similarly consider carrying with an empty chamber to be carrying a weapon in a malfunctioned state, as while in that state it's not capable of firing. I would personally never consider carrying a pistol I know to have a double feed, stovepipe, or any other malfunction, and that would include an empty chamber. Carrying with an empty chamber is basically a failure to feed malfunction, only rather than the cause being a mechanical defect, it was caused by operator error. Why would you want to carry a weapon in a state where you need to remediate a malfunction before its capable of firing?

I know there are a lot of people that give you crap for open carrying. That's a decision where both sides have merit, and just because most people don't agree with your decision doesn't necessarily make you wrong. This however is not that type of situation. There's simply no merit to carrying empty, not with a modern and well maintained firearm.

I highly recommend that you reconsider your decision, especially when open carrying. Carrying a weapon in an unready state simply isn't a reasonable option, no matter what the circumstance.

Fair enough. As I said, my only concern is setback and not wanting the thing to blow up in my hands, and that's the ONLY reason I don't carry with one in the pipe. Perhaps I just need to research it more and do some experiments with my gun for my own peace of mind.

Dont blame you one bit for not wanting a gun to blow up in your hand.

I dont normally unload my firearm on a daily basis so the round normally just remains in the chamber unless I go to the range or it gets unloaded for its monthly cleaning.
In nearly 30yrs of shooting 45acp in a 1911 I have experienced 0 setback.
Since I have recently changed brand of carry ammo I will keep an eye on it for awhile and if no problems I will not let it concern me. YMMV

OC isnt for me but I do enjoy the amount of people I see in Az that OC hopefully in time it will be more common every place.

Good to know. I wouldn't load and unload either unless I was going to the range, which I do 1-2x a month, thus taking care of any cleaning needs. I'd just fire off the one chambered JHP and then load ball ammo for practice, leave it empty, go home, clean it, load the JHP into the chamber again. That method may work and then I wouldn't have to cycle the same round at all.

Thoughts?

[Rem700]

I cant grasp the thought process.

If you carry empty chamber and chamber a round just prior to fireing how do you know the round you just chambered didnt just setback

You are reasoning, and being logical...and kinda boiled by post down to one line... [/quote]

You don't know it didn't setback, true.... however, I think the chance of setback happening when chambering a round one time, is much less so then if you chamber the same round over and over again.[/quote]


Actually you could know whether or not it setback after chambering once:
Measure and mark 10/ 100/ 1000 rds. Chamber and eject them, remeasure and note any discrepancies.

And all that has NOTHING to do with carrying a chambered round, or not.
It's a pretty simple process not to chamber the same round "...over and over again."
There is nothing reasonable about this as an argument to not carry a loaded chamber.
For whatever your motivations, it is a false rationalization.[/quote]

Yes checking for setback once the round is chambered and then unchambered is relativly simple.
My point was how do you know whether or not the round just chambered didnt setback while chambering as there is no safe way to check the round while it remains chambered.

[Seismic Sam]

And to repeat what I've said before, round setback can be a symptom of a poor crimp in a handload, or a gun malfunction involving the mag and the feed ramp with factory ammo. Too weak a mag spring, or too much friction on the inside of a mag can make the top round in a full stack barely pop off and go up, or it can go nose down into the bottom of a too short feed ramp. Both issues were present in my EAA Witnesses, and I suspect from the clone forum on czforum.com that this situation was pretty endemic with Witnesses. Recontouring and lengthening the ramp, and reducing the friction on the inside of the mag body and adding a stronger Wolff +10% spring made the problem go AWAY!! So it's entirely possible that other manufacturers may put out guns with this incipient type of problem, which will result in setback with factory or reloaded ammo with an insufficient crimp. If you see setback, your gun may need work. It's not a factory defect per se, but it's an issue that may show up on some mags and not others, and some brands of ammo.

I think the Glaser Blues I had in 10mm were a good example, because I was running a 22# recoil spring in my EAA (you pretty much have to for full power loads), and Glaser Blues are NOT solid lead bullets! They are a copper jacket filled with #11 bird shot, which is devastating when the bullet hits a perp and the bullet comes apart. The point is, however, that you can't put a hard crimp on a copper jacket filled with #11 shot, so they could take maybe 2 chamberings before the bullet started to set back.

As I also said before, this is an issue that will probably be dependent on the number of rounds in the mag, with a full mag having a greater tendency to setback than the last 3 or 4 rounds. And BTW, this is probably why this phenomena is pretty much unknown with SINGLE stacks, because the friction is so much less and the physics are much more straightforward. The spring force goes straight up through the single stack of bullets, rather than in a zig-zag line bouncing off the mag walls at a 30 degree angle 14 - 18 times.