One in the chamber or no?

[mblat1968]

Let me give you a somewhat different perspective.


It is all about odds: what are you preparing for, and what have you decided not to train for? For example, are you training for a terrorist attack at a large public event? Are you training for an encounter with some drunk guy on the street? Clearly, the level of readiness required for those two situations is very different. You need to decide for yourself what level of preparedness is reasonable for you.


Are you carrying a spare magazine? I don't. I base that decision on the fact that reloads by civilians during self-defense shootings appear to be very rare. Based on the statistics I found, the average number of rounds fired in a self-defense incident is roughly 2.5 to 3.8. I knowingly decided not to prepare for the relatively small number of cases in which I might need more ammunition because of the added inconvenience of carrying a spare magazine.


Note: I am not advocating for this particular decision. It is simply the decision I made for myself.


Carrying without a round in the chamber is not necessarily a stupid decision either. Again, based on available statistics, in more than 80% of reported defensive gun uses, the defender does not fire the gun at all. Add situations in which there is enough time to rack the slide, and the percentage of situations in which carrying without a chambered round would not prevent you from using the gun is presumably even higher.


Again, I am not advocating for either choice. I am suggesting that people realistically consider exactly what they want to be prepared to face and what tradeoffs they are willing to accept.


Drawing a gun from a holster is a skill, especially with concealed carry. Are you prepared to spend the time necessary to become proficient at it? Depending on the answer, your decision about whether to carry with a round in the chamber may change.


That said, I carry with a round in the chamber, and yes, I regularly practice drawing from the holster.

 

[Brandon Breeze]

What do you mean by professionals?

I'm pretty sure this is who he was referring to:

 

[mrbieler]

I guess I’m showing my training level here but until I’ve trained enough and am more comfortable, it’ll be an empty chamber for now. Appreciate all the insight and advice here. A lot to process, might check back in in a few months.

Also from you: "I have. I trained racking one handed in various positions. Honestly I can watch all the YouTube videos in the world but this is my personal risk vs reward preference. It’s not the end all be all, it’s just a person with a different perspective."

So which is it? If you're trained enough to be comfortable using one hand, which is a more advanced and most would say less than ideal manipulation, that would certainly suggest you've trained enough to handle a loaded weapon from holster.

If you're not comfortable doing it, it's your call. But don't fall back on a "lack of training" and then suggest your are sufficiently trained to handle the pistol one handed under duress.

 

[DJD100]

They’ve done much better with lawsuits than Glock has. Courts ruled there is no issue with the firearm, the class actions all failed recently and the DoD confirmed via testing and a decade of use the gun works well and is safe. The newest design of the M18 even surpassed the M9 for rounds fired without a stoppage which is crazy. No need to spread FUD.

I don’t know of any conceal carrier that’s had an issue, it’s an extremely popular handgun, both in the military and law enforcement as well as private sales.

Sig P320 history...

100+ reported un-commanded discharges (some percentage are no doubt operator error, but not all!).
100+ active law suits (so far Sig is batting .500 in court I believe?).
FBI test: 9/50 un-commanded discharges in holster (wiggle fire).

The P365 does the same job more safely for me personally (0 reports of un-commanded discharges, though the trigger return spring requires periodic maintenance every 5K - 10K rounds), but to each his own...

 

[Gawernator]

Sig P320 history...

100+ reported un-commanded discharges (some percentage are no doubt operator error, but not all!).
100+ active law suits (so far Sig is batting .500 in court I believe?).
FBI test: 9/50 un-commanded discharges in holster (wiggle fire).

The P365 does the same job more safely for me personally (0 reports of un-commanded discharges, though the trigger return spring requires periodic maintenance every 5K - 10K rounds), but to each his own...

Links to these claims?

Glock has far more discharge incidents and lawsuits. All the big lawsuits Sig Sauer has won handily. They don’t call it Glock leg for nothing. Clinging on to a couple police incidents with dubious circumstances from a decade ago is just sad.

It was a lot of drama and smoke with no fire. Just like how Glock leg has faded to where newbies don’t even know about that history, same has already happened with the P320. It’s getting old hearing the FUD from pre 2016

 

[john_marsten_1873]

There are millions of people who carry firearms in the US. Many carry in various configurations (chambered no safety, chambered w/safety, not chambered, etc)

The only correct answer is what works for you.

Carry on . . .

If you just want to carry a gun, carry on…

If you want to give yourself the best chance of winning were you required to use a gun that’s a different story.

 

[Bobalover209]

I think he used to put out a lot of FUD to sell books. Like all the baloney about a trigger job somehow being used against you in court after a legitimate — and intentional — self defense shooting. I think he’s backed off all that now, but the damage was done. FUD Merchants are still peddling that BS all over the internet, and citing him as authority.

I haven't seen much of his older content, mostly the newer stuff on "facts and firearms" and "the wilson combat channel" which seems pretty relevant.

 

[DJD100]

Links to these claims?

Glock has far more discharge incidents and lawsuits. All the big lawsuits Sig Sauer has won handily. They don’t call it Glock leg for nothing. Clinging on to a couple police incidents with dubious circumstances from a decade ago is just sad.

It was a lot of drama and smoke with no fire. Just like how Glock leg has faded to where newbies don’t even know about that history, same has already happened with the P320. It’s getting old hearing the FUD from pre 2016

Not wasting my time researching every case for you, though here's a quick synopsis you can attempt to cast as spurious...

SIG Sauer P320 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Bringing up Glocks brings nothing to this subject, and the fact is there is a lot of smoke with regards to the P320/M18/M17, and where there's smoke, there's usually fire. That said, obviously the problems currently only effect a tiny percentage of the firearms sold so far, but the unique design is not as robust as many others.

Hopefully you're not carrying your P320 appendix style where the slide gets torqued regularly...

 

[Gawernator]

Not wasting my time researching every case for you, though here's a quick synopsis you can attempt to cast as spurious...

SIG Sauer P320 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Bringing up Glocks brings nothing to this subject, and the fact is there is a lot of smoke with regards to the P320/M18/M17, and where there's smoke, there's usually fire. That said, obviously the problems currently only effect a tiny percentage of the firearms sold so far, but the unique design is not as robust as many others.

Hopefully you're not carrying your P320 appendix style where the slide gets torqued regularly...

Any examples of a P320 “going off without a trigger pull” carried appendix?

I mean your own article debunks your claim

“SIG Sauer subsequently engaged with the FBI and Michigan State Police, and a follow-up round of testing was conducted using a mutually agreed protocol. According to SIG Sauer, the subsequent testing produced no failures across approximately 560 attempts on about 20 striker assemblies, and Michigan State Police continued to issue P320-platform pistols to its officers. The follow-up report has not been made public, and the FBI BRF has not issued a public statement on the safety of the P320.”

Pentagon dubs M18 handgun ‘safe and reliable’ after review

The Pentagon has dubbed the M18 handgun "safe and reliable," with officials blaming safety concerns on “public speculation and online misinformation.”

www.militarytimes.com

Everyone wants to blame Glock or Sig when they shoot themselves. I’m not buying it.

In July 2025, Air Force Global Strike Command(AFGSC) temporarily paused the use of its M18 pistols as a precaution following the shooting death of a Security Forces Airman.[54] An investigation by the Air Force Office of Special Investigations later revealed the incident was not a weapon malfunction; an airman was arrested and charged with involuntary manslaughter for allegedly pointing his weapon at the victim and making false statementsabout the shooting. After a command-wide inspection of all 7,970 M18s, AFGSC reinstated the pistol for duty use in August 2025, stating that a review of past discharges found none were attributable to weapon malfunction.[55][56]

On July 9, 2025, a U.S. Department of Homeland Security memorandum directed U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to discontinue operational use of the P320 and transition to a different model.[57] On July 28, 2025, ICE renewed its contract for SIG P320 service weapons through 2027.[58]

Looks like the Swiss military isn’t buying your FUD either: https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/various/swiss-army-opts-for-most-economical-pistol-model/90585688

 

[Hamburger Monster]

I’m not here justifying why carrying one way is better than the other. I’m simply answering a post about whether I carry with 1 in the chamber or not.

As long as I train with the way I carry, isn’t that all that matters?

If you haven't already, practice doing the tueller drill and see if an empty chamber is still worth it

 

[HarleyLowRiderST]

Let me give you a somewhat different perspective.


It is all about odds: what are you preparing for, and what have you decided not to train for? For example, are you training for a terrorist attack at a large public event? Are you training for an encounter with some drunk guy on the street? Clearly, the level of readiness required for those two situations is very different. You need to decide for yourself what level of preparedness is reasonable for you.


Are you carrying a spare magazine? I don't. I base that decision on the fact that reloads by civilians during self-defense shootings appear to be very rare. Based on the statistics I found, the average number of rounds fired in a self-defense incident is roughly 2.5 to 3.8. I knowingly decided not to prepare for the relatively small number of cases in which I might need more ammunition because of the added inconvenience of carrying a spare magazine.


Note: I am not advocating for this particular decision. It is simply the decision I made for myself.


Carrying without a round in the chamber is not necessarily a stupid decision either. Again, based on available statistics, in more than 80% of reported defensive gun uses, the defender does not fire the gun at all. Add situations in which there is enough time to rack the slide, and the percentage of situations in which carrying without a chambered round would not prevent you from using the gun is presumably even higher.


Again, I am not advocating for either choice. I am suggesting that people realistically consider exactly what they want to be prepared to face and what tradeoffs they are willing to accept.


Drawing a gun from a holster is a skill, especially with concealed carry. Are you prepared to spend the time necessary to become proficient at it? Depending on the answer, your decision about whether to carry with a round in the chamber may change.


That said, I carry with a round in the chamber, and yes, I regularly practice drawing from the holster.

Very well summarized @mblat1968 thank you.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, (chambered or not) shall not be infringed."

 

[john_marsten_1873]

Let me give you a somewhat different perspective.


It is all about odds: what are you preparing for, and what have you decided not to train for? For example, are you training for a terrorist attack at a large public event? Are you training for an encounter with some drunk guy on the street? Clearly, the level of readiness required for those two situations is very different. You need to decide for yourself what level of preparedness is reasonable for you.


Are you carrying a spare magazine? I don't. I base that decision on the fact that reloads by civilians during self-defense shootings appear to be very rare. Based on the statistics I found, the average number of rounds fired in a self-defense incident is roughly 2.5 to 3.8. I knowingly decided not to prepare for the relatively small number of cases in which I might need more ammunition because of the added inconvenience of carrying a spare magazine.


Note: I am not advocating for this particular decision. It is simply the decision I made for myself.


Carrying without a round in the chamber is not necessarily a stupid decision either. Again, based on available statistics, in more than 80% of reported defensive gun uses, the defender does not fire the gun at all. Add situations in which there is enough time to rack the slide, and the percentage of situations in which carrying without a chambered round would not prevent you from using the gun is presumably even higher.


Again, I am not advocating for either choice. I am suggesting that people realistically consider exactly what they want to be prepared to face and what tradeoffs they are willing to accept.


Drawing a gun from a holster is a skill, especially with concealed carry. Are you prepared to spend the time necessary to become proficient at it? Depending on the answer, your decision about whether to carry with a round in the chamber may change.


That said, I carry with a round in the chamber, and yes, I regularly practice drawing from the holster.

So what do feel you’re preparing for?

 

[mblat1968]

First of all I know I have well over 90 percent chance that I will never be in situation where I will have to use firearm.

That stated the most likely scenario where I would have to is some kind office incident. But since I am not allowed to posses gun on the company offices it is moot.

The next most likely is something similar to situation that occured recently in Cerritos.

That is what I think.

 

[Hamburger Monster]

Let me give you a somewhat different perspective.


It is all about odds: what are you preparing for, and what have you decided not to train for? For example, are you training for a terrorist attack at a large public event? Are you training for an encounter with some drunk guy on the street? Clearly, the level of readiness required for those two situations is very different. You need to decide for yourself what level of preparedness is reasonable for you.


Are you carrying a spare magazine? I don't. I base that decision on the fact that reloads by civilians during self-defense shootings appear to be very rare. Based on the statistics I found, the average number of rounds fired in a self-defense incident is roughly 2.5 to 3.8. I knowingly decided not to prepare for the relatively small number of cases in which I might need more ammunition because of the added inconvenience of carrying a spare magazine.


Note: I am not advocating for this particular decision. It is simply the decision I made for myself.


Carrying without a round in the chamber is not necessarily a stupid decision either. Again, based on available statistics, in more than 80% of reported defensive gun uses, the defender does not fire the gun at all. Add situations in which there is enough time to rack the slide, and the percentage of situations in which carrying without a chambered round would not prevent you from using the gun is presumably even higher.


Again, I am not advocating for either choice. I am suggesting that people realistically consider exactly what they want to be prepared to face and what tradeoffs they are willing to accept.


Drawing a gun from a holster is a skill, especially with concealed carry. Are you prepared to spend the time necessary to become proficient at it? Depending on the answer, your decision about whether to carry with a round in the chamber may change.


That said, I carry with a round in the chamber, and yes, I regularly practice drawing from the holster.

These statistics are often sighted but from my understanding they are highly flawed. They either contain the supposed 80% never fire the gun, which brings the whole average way down. If the 80% percent never fired is correct, and included in the numbers, and the rest, 20% percent shot 10 rounds, that would average only 2 rounds average.

The other issue is the statistics are based on a small sample size. Possibly no more then a few hundred examples

The next issue is reports to the police, the number of rounds fired are often times less then actuality. When the number of shell casings or bullets found in the walls or perp are higher then the victim though they fired. This is true ever for people we would normally expect to be trained for this. Police have made statements they fired 3 or 4 rounds when they actually unloaded their whole magazine.

And lastly, most of these numbers come from organizations or people pushing for magazine capacity limits. Trying to prove that we don't need more then 10 rounds because the "majority" don't fire more then x number, always being really low

Basically be careful with these statistics. Watching a good number of active self protection videos, I see there are quite a few where mag dumping or firing off a good number is not that uncommon when one does happen to find oneself needing to pull the trigger

 

[mblat1968]

I suggest

These statistics are often sighted but from my understanding they are highly flawed. They either contain the supposed 80% never fire the gun, which brings the whole average way down. If the 80% percent never fired is correct, and included in the numbers, and the rest, 20% percent shot 10 rounds, that would average only 2 rounds average.

The other issue is the statistics are based on a small sample size. Possibly no more then a few hundred examples

The next issue is reports to the police, the number of rounds fired are often times less then actuality. When the number of shell casings or bullets found in the walls or perp are higher then the victim though they fired. This is true ever for people we would normally expect to be trained for this. Police have made statements they fired 3 or 4 rounds when they actually unloaded their whole magazine.

And lastly, most of these numbers come from organizations or people pushing for magazine capacity limits. Trying to prove that we don't need more then 10 rounds because the "majority" don't fire more then x number, always being really low

Basically be careful with these statistics. Watching a good number of active self protection videos, I see there are quite a few where mag dumping or firing off a good number is not that uncommon when one does happen to find oneself needing to pull the trigger

I suggest you go and do your own research.

ChatGPT is your friend.

However. I do not see an argument here. I made my decision based on my research. If you interested I can share it. I specifically said that I make no suggestions for others except do the same. Research the subject come up with scenario you ready to train for and live with your choices.

Unless you can provide data that definitely shows that my research is wrong I am not sure what are you arguing with.

 

[Radman64]

Basic firearm safety is to NEVER have a live round chambered unless one is active in shooting something.
My idiot friend just blew a hole in his ceiling cycling his 12 gauge with live rounds.
Buy dummy rounds.

 

[Hamburger Monster]

I suggest

I suggest you go and do your own research.

ChatGPT is your friend.

However. I do not see an argument here. I made my decision based on my research. If you interested I can share it. I specifically said that I make no suggestions for others except do the same. Research the subject come up with scenario you ready to train for and live with your choices.

Unless you can provide data that definitely shows that my research is wrong I am not sure what are you arguing with.

Here's your Chat GPT"

"ChatGPT said:
If you're referring to the claimed number of rounds fired in self-defense, the number can indeed be a flawed statistic if it's presented as though it proves something by itself.

A few reasons:

• Self-defense incidents vary enormously—one shot, several shots, or no shots at all can occur depending on circumstances.
• Reported round counts may be unreliable, especially when based on recollection during a stressful event.
• Survivorship and reporting bias can distort datasets: incidents that become police cases or news stories aren't necessarily representative of all defensive encounters.
• “Rounds fired” doesn't measure effectiveness or necessity. A high number doesn't automatically mean the defender acted improperly, and a low number doesn't automatically mean the response was justified.
• Different studies define incidents differently. Some count shots fired, some count defensive uses, and some rely on surveys or police reports, making direct comparisons problematic.

So if someone is arguing, for example, “the average defensive gun use involves X rounds, therefore…”, the conclusion may be much weaker than the number makes it sound. The important question is where the number came from, how the sample was collected, and exactly what the statistic measures.

If you give me the specific claimed number or source, I can examine whether the statistic is actually flawed.

1. You said:​

   "the average number of rounds fired in a self-defense incident is roughly 2.5 to 3.8"

2. ChatGPT said:​

   Yes—but I would not present “2.5 to 3.8 rounds” as a single established average for self-defense incidents.
   
   The numbers appear to come from different datasets, not from one authoritative study:
   • The 3.8-shot figure I can trace to a 2025 account of Tom Givens/Rangemaster alumni data: 71 reported defensive shootings, averaging 3.8 shots per incident, with a range of 1–12. That's a particular instructor's alumni sample, not a representative national sample.
   • The 2.5-shot figure is frequently repeated online, sometimes attributed to the DOJ, but I haven't found evidence in the material I searched that establishes 2.5 as a DOJ national average for civilian defensive gun uses. One forum post makes exactly that attribution, but that's not evidence of the underlying DOJ statistic. USA Carry - Concealed Carry Forum
   • There are also police-use-of-force datasets with averages around 2.5 rounds in particular years, but those are obviously not civilian self-defense incidents. For example, one 2016 use-of-force report records 2.5 rounds for a specific category of officer-involved shooting incidents. Courthouse News
   
   So the statement:
   
   

   “The average number of rounds fired in a self-defense incident is roughly 2.5 to 3.8.”

   is potentially misleading because it combines figures from different sources/populations and makes them sound like a well-established range.
   
   A more defensible formulation would be:
   
   

   “Some datasets of defensive shootings have reported averages in the roughly 2.5–4-shot range, but there is no single reliable national average that establishes 2.5–3.8 rounds as the typical number for all civilian self-defense incidents.”

   And there's an even bigger statistical issue: “average rounds fired” can be very different from “rounds fired in incidents where shots were fired.” If defensive gun uses where no shots are fired are included in the denominator, the average drops dramatically. That distinction needs to be specified before comparing numbers.
   
   And from Googles AI overview:
   "The Law of Averages: A mathematical average obscures extreme scenarios. If a majority of encounters involve a defender firing 0 to 1 shots to scare away an intruder, it mathematically suppresses the significant minority of life-threatening encounters where a defender must fire 10, 15, or more rounds to stop an aggressive threat or manage multiple attackers. [1, 2]
   • Severe Selection Bias: Data from sources like the Gun Violence Archive (GVA) or mainstream media rely primarily on published news reports. Media coverage heavily favors simplistic, quick resolutions (e.g., a single shot fired at a fleeing robber) or fatal interactions, while leaving out a massive volume of unreported or poorly detailed incidents where high volumes of ammunition were exchanged but nobody was hit. [1, 2]
   • The Mythical "3-3-3" Origin: A massive chunk of training philosophy has long relied on the "3 yards, 3 shots, 3 seconds" mantra, frequently attributed to the FBI. However, firearms researchers confirm the FBI has never officially published this metric. Real-world data reveals that up to 55% of civilian gunfights require more than three rounds, and a substantial percentage easily exceed 5 to 7 rounds. [1]
   • Inaccurate Under-Reporting by Survivors: Human beings experience extreme biological stress under a sudden, life-threatening threat. The activation of the sympathetic nervous system triggers cognitive decline, tunnel vision, and auditory exclusion. Decades of law enforcement data from platforms like Police1 prove that shooters routinely under-report how many rounds they fired because they literally cannot accurately track their shots in the heat of a fight.
   • Unclear Metrics in Court Decisions: Legal challenges over magazine bans, such as the major case reviewed by the Spokesman-Review and The Columbian, highlighted that state-cited studies suffer from extremely small sample sizes, a total lack of peer-reviewed data, and highly speculative estimations when exact numbers are missing. [1, 2]
     
     Real-World Factors that Distort the Numbers Low Hit Rates: Under high-stress conditions, civilians and trained police officers miss a significant portion of their shots. An average hit rate might hover below 20-30% in a dynamic gunfight, meaning a defender must fire significantly more total rounds just to achieve the 2 to 4 vital hits required to physically stop a charging threat.Adrenaline and Substance Use: Attackers under the influence of severe narcotics or high adrenaline often do not stop immediately from a single pistol wound. Defenders are trained to "shoot until the threat is stopped," which naturally escalates the total volume of rounds fired in real-life survival encounters.Multiple Attackers: Aggressors and home invaders frequently operate in pairs or small groups. Even if a strict "2 rounds per target" average were physically true, a defensive scenario involving two or three perpetrators instantly demands a capacity that eclipses standard statistical averages."
     

 

[Radman64]

What is that gibberish?
You can't speak for yourself, common firearm safety.

 

[john_marsten_1873]

Basic firearm safety is to NEVER have a live round chambered unless one is active in shooting something.
My idiot friend just blew a hole in his ceiling cycling his 12 gauge with live rounds.
Buy dummy rounds.

Sure, your friend sounds like an idiot but “basic firearm safety” based on what?

 

[Radman64]

Sure, your friend sounds like an idiot but “basic firearm safety” based on what?

Common sense!