Who here carries concealed and how?

[CB Jones]

• Statistically speaking most, by an impressive degree, Unintended Discharges happen unrelated to the draw. From what I can tell, unloading for service and cleaning (particularly those that require a trigger press to disassemble) lead the pack followed by "testing the trigger."
  
• Most times that someone Unintended Discharges into their own body during a draw, it is from a hip draw (IWB/OWB). Variations of "Glock Leg" seem to be disproportionately represented.
  
• I can't remember ever seeing any reports of a defensive carrier accidentally shooting an innocent person as a result of a borked draw from a shoulder holster or cross-draw holster. Can you point to any? Can you point to enough examples to show that it is a statistically significant "problem?"
• I also can't remember seeing more cases of a Concealed Carry in a defensive encounter having their drawstroke stuffed by the attacker from Shoulder/Cross/Appendix than those being stuffed from any other concealed holster method. Can you point to enough examples to show that it is a statistically significant "problem?"

I recently heard an interview with firearms instructor, revolver expert, and author Grant Cunningham in which he described for a wide audience a philosophy which I've been espousing for years: Possible, Plausible, and Likely. Prepare first for what is statistically most likely. Only after you've thoroughly dealt with what is most "likely" concern yourself with "plausible." Don't spent much time worrying about "possible." We have limited resources and cannot possibly prepare for every possibility.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Don't have any studies to quote.

My opinions are based on analysis of lethal force encounters during undercover operations and what worked well and what caused problems.

Also from observations during scenario training.

This is what we teach and we do not recommend cross draws. In my opinion, a more conventional draw is more effective in a gunfight.

Also, a more conventional draw is much easier to conceal than crossdraws.

 

[lklawson]

Don't have any studies to quote.

My opinions are based on analysis of lethal force encounters during undercover operations and what worked well and what caused problems.

Also from observations during scenario training.

This is what we teach and we do not recommend cross draws. In my opinion, a more conventional draw is more effective in a gunfight.

Also, a more conventional draw is much easier to conceal than crossdraws.

I'm not asking for studies or doubting that it "could" happen. What I'm questioning is whether or not the risk of "could" rises to the level of something to actually be concerned about. I "could" contract bubonic plague here in the U.S. It's still around. 15 people caught it and 4 died from in in '15, iirc. But what are the most likely diseases? Statistically, I should be vastly more concerned about contracting Influenza. Hundreds of thousands of people get it each year and as many as 36,000 die from it each year (depending on how you compile it).

Again, with 900,000+ DGU's per year and 11.1+ million CCW holders, how many shoulder/cross draws are being stuffed per year?

So, I'm not saying that a shoulder/cross draw can't be stuffed. Of course they "can." I'm saying that unless it happens a ton more than anyone has been able to document, then it's not really something worth worrying about.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[CB Jones]

Well it's more than just the draw being "stuffed" it's also because it isn't as effective or efficient.

A cross draw takes more movement and the draw itself is harder to conceal.

It's harder to retain in a struggle as well.

I'm recommending my opinion for the best methods and I just don't see a cross draw as one of the better methods of carrying.

In my opinion a cross draw creates a disadvantage for you in a gunfight as compared with a more conventional draw.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

No. Not "for any reason." Malfunction, parts wear, manufacturing defect, or defect in design (Nambu?) are examples which would not be user negligence.

I believe I understand your point of view, but here's mine.

The person in possession of the firearm is ultimately responsible for anything that happens, whether due to design flaw, malfunction, or unintended consequences of situations like dropping the weapon, catching the trigger on something while drawing, leaving it where others can pick it up, etc.

The proof of that is seen in legal ramifications, not to mention the moral responsibilities many (not all, I admit) would feel if their weapon discharged and someone was injured or killed whom they did not intend to injure or kill.

So someone owns a badly-designed weapon like the aforementioned Nambu. Are they negligent if it discharges while merely being looked at with an angry expression? I would argue they are, because as the gun owner, they should know exactly what the strengths and weaknesses of the weapon are; as unsafe as it is, it should never have a live round within 10 feet of it.

Parts wear? Again, gun owner is responsible for this.

As the concept was introduced to me:

The Rifleman's Creed
by Major General William H. Rupertus

This is my rifle. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
My rifle is my best friend. It is my life. I must master it as I must master my life.
Without me, my rifle is useless. Without my rifle, I am useless. I must fire my rifle true. I must shoot straighter than my enemy who is trying to kill me. I must shoot him before he shoots me. I will...
My rifle and I know that what counts in war is not the rounds we fire, the noise of our burst, nor the smoke we make. We know that it is the hits that count. We will hit...
My rifle is human, even as I, because it is my life. Thus, I will learn it as a brother. I will learn its weaknesses, its strength, its parts, its accessories, its sights and its barrel. I will keep my rifle clean and ready, even as I am clean and ready. We will become part of each other. We will...
Before God, I swear this creed. My rifle and I are the defenders of my country. We are the masters of our enemy. We are the saviors of my life.
So be it, until victory is America's and there is no enemy, but peace!
​

Granted that the above is dated and out-of-fashion, but this is what was taught in Marine Boot Camp in the late 1970s. We were responsible for the condition of our weapons. We were responsible for everything that happened to the weapon while it was in our control. There absolutely was no such thing as an 'accidental' discharge; only authorized discharges and negligent discharges.

I do understand the concept you're espousing. I get it. But I do think that a very strict, no-fooling, approach to firearm safety and responsibility is important for a number of reasons.

Case in point - it's not that uncommon these days for a homeowner to catch some scumbag breaking into an outbuilding or a vehicle or to catch the bad guy as he's leaving the residence, and he chases the bad guy down the street, shooting at him.

If the gun owner understood on a basic, instinctive level that he and he alone (or she) was responsible for each and every one of those little highspeed murderballs of lead flying down the street at his or her neighbor's houses, he or she MIGHT think twice.

Never mind that the law doesn't typically permit deadly force when a bad guy is FLEEING in most places in the USA, just the moral implications of caring what happens when you pull the trigger should be part of the base level understanding of every gun owner, IMHO.

"I shot at the fleeing bad guy and I accidentally killed my neighbor's kid. I'm sorry, didn't mean to do it." Now tell me, accidental discharge or negligent?

"I dropped my gun and it's an old design SAA revolver that caused the round in the chamber to discharge, killing my neighbor. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to do it." Accident or negligence?

"I was in Walmart and I bent over to look at a price tag and my legally-concealed handgun fell out of my trick tacticool uberholster, and as I grabbed for it, it discharged, killing an innocent shopper. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to do it." Accident or negligence?

I was raised with the same ethic as Massad Ayoob. My dad taught me firearms safety when I got my first shotgun at age 10. He taught me things like the nomenclature of the gun, how to disassemble, clean, and reassemble it. He taught me that when you kill something or someone, they don't come back, they're gone forever. He taught me how to cross a fenceline safely, how to carry in a cornfield so that hunters in a row don't shoot each other, how to keep my finger out of the triggerwell, how to keep the muzzle elevated and pointed downrange.

When I shot my first rabbit and it screamed like a human baby being tortured and he made me take the knife and put it out of its misery, then clean and later eat it, I was made to understand what life and death mean when you choose to go about armed.

Yes, I was taught that all guns are loaded. I understood what you said - treat them as if they are always loaded, not that they are all literally loaded. Even as a 10-year-old, I understood this.

All guns are loaded. Got it. Makes sense. If it goes off and I didn't intend it to, that's on me. In this world of 'not-my-fault', what happens with my weapon is entirely my fault - good or bad.

 

[lklawson]

Well it's more than just the draw being "stuffed" it's also because it isn't as effective or efficient.

A cross draw takes more movement and the draw itself is harder to conceal.

It's harder to retain in a struggle as well.

I'm recommending my opinion for the best methods and I just don't see a cross draw as one of the better methods of carrying.

In my opinion a cross draw creates a disadvantage for you in a gunfight as compared with a more conventional draw.

I don't disagree with any of that. I agree that traditional hip carry makes a concealed drawstroke easier. Frankly, I hate crossdraw, personally speaking. I don't like shoulder as much either.

But I recognize that shoulder/cross do have a place and sometimes make sense. I have a friend who's a truckdriver, for instance. Traditional hip doesn't work well for him when he's "on the job."

But that's really not what the gist of my complaint was, which was that getting into grappling over the gun, particularly getting stuffed during the drawstroke, really isn't a big issue for non-cop civvies. For us, we're either getting the gun out or we're too busy fighting to try to get the gun out yet.

Cops, on the other hand... Yeah, different circumstances mean different requirements.

That's another complaint I have about the Firearms for Self Defense community. Most of us seem to believe that LEO training and methods (or worse, military methods and training) are what we should use. It's not. We're not cops. We're not arresting bad guys and detaining suspects. While there are, obviously, going to be some points of overlap, it's definitely not identical.

Why Military and Law Enforcement firearms force training may not be op

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[lklawson]

I believe I understand your point of view, but here's mine.

Not trying to be a jerk here, but what you just wrote was, "Yeah, I agree that it's not technically negligence, but the potential consequences are such that I'm going to say it is anyway in hopes that people will be scared into being extra cautious." See any problems with that?

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Well it's more than just the draw being "stuffed" it's also because it isn't as effective or efficient.

A cross draw takes more movement and the draw itself is harder to conceal.

It's harder to retain in a struggle as well.

I'm recommending my opinion for the best methods and I just don't see a cross draw as one of the better methods of carrying.

In my opinion a cross draw creates a disadvantage for you in a gunfight as compared with a more conventional draw.

As I ponder this, I think there may be a difference in need between the audiences. Your experience is specific to undercover officers. The physics translates, of course, but how much of the situations translate with the same probability? Undercover officers, it seems, would be in a more high-risk environment. They would be more likely to need a concealed draw, and to attempt a draw with someone close enough to interfere. They may also be more likely to want a fast draw. I'd love to see some information on these sorts of decision points for civilians carrying, examining civilian use.

 

[jks9199]

There is never a time for the cross draw or shoulder holster.

Military pilots and our helo crews use shoulder holsters. Note that I specify a time and place. There may be one for cross draw, though I can't think of one...

 

[jks9199]

No, it does not.

I got how you'd carry, and I can see how you'd draw without lasering yourself... but it seems mighty awkward. But, hey, it's your call so long as you don't point the muzzle at me.

 

[CB Jones]

I don't see the difference in the UC and John Q Public.

The UC is not making arrests or detaining suspects. We are posing as a citizen and the gun is solely for self defense.

Whether I'm working UC or going to the grocery store I carry in a manner in which i can defend myself against a would be attacker.

I'm prepared to defend myself or family against the potential robbery homicide or crazed gunman. And the same tactics are gonna work for the average citizen as it does for the UC in those scenarios.

For me, I carry in a manner that I feel gives me the best chance of winning the gunfight against someone who already has the drop on me.

Better to be over prepared than under prepared.

 

[CB Jones]

Military pilots and our helo crews use shoulder holsters. Note that I specify a time and place. There may be one for cross draw, though I can't think of one...

They carry shoulder holsters so the gun is out their way when they are seated in the cockpit.

 

[jks9199]

Also I keep in mind a couple other things.

1) No such thing as accidental discharge. Negligent discharge, yes. That change in description informs.

While rare, there are true accidental discharges. They're usually associated with weapon malfunctions. Saw a video of one recently; the shooter had done an unloaded dry run of a course of fire, and when commanded to, loaded and made ready. His finger was well away from the trigger. AS he ran the slide forward, the gun fired. Fortunately, he was pointed down range, so the worst that happened was a huge bump in the training session and some extra lead in the backstop. Unfortunately, the video clip didn't include a postmortem of the gun. At a guess, and judging by the totality of what I saw, I'd say that it was a striker fired gun (Glock/Sig 226/Springfield XD/lots of others, I don't recall if I noticed the make, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't a Glock because there are multiple safeties that would have to fail), and that the lug that prevents the striker from going forward failed as he ran the slide forward, allowing the striker to hit the primer of the first round as it loaded. Wouldn't be surprised if he'd had a moment of semi-auto or even full auto fire if it hadn't gone off then. Again, making a guesses -- don't see any reason to assume he neglected caring for his gun. Parts sometimes are no-good and fail, with little or no warning...

 

[jks9199]

Here's an example of what I mean. I heard one woman speaking about her introduction to guns. Part of it was Cooper's safety rules. In particular, his first rule: "All guns are always loaded." You and I know that it is intended to be a 'hard line' reminder to always treat guns as if they are loaded. We know that it can not logically be true. However, because she was completely inexperienced, the thought that "All guns are always loaded," actually made her afraid of them. She couldn't figure out how it could be true but, heck, this expert over here told her it was the number one rule so it must be true. Now, an Ayoob certified trainer herself, she restates the rule as, "Always treat all guns as if they are loaded." It's a subtle difference but it made a big difference to her as a non-initiate.

While they're a very functional set of safety rules, it helps to remember that Cooper's Cardinal Rules were developed for working on a hot range, where all the shooters routinely have loaded guns. In that setting, treating all guns as loaded makes sense. Once you move out of a particular environment -- you should know the condition of your weapon. Maintaining the Cardinal Rules helps add to safety -- especially if you are unaware of the condition of a particular weapon.

 

[jks9199]

That's another complaint I have about the Firearms for Self Defense community. Most of us seem to believe that LEO training and methods (or worse, military methods and training) are what we should use. It's not. We're not cops. We're not arresting bad guys and detaining suspects. While there are, obviously, going to be some points of overlap, it's definitely not identical.

Why Military and Law Enforcement firearms force training may not be op

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Some of the tactics, drills, and principles of military training are applicable to law enforcement -- but not all. Some of the tactics, drills, and principles of LE training are applicable to the military. (Striking commentary; a military special warfare type visited our academy to review some of the training on room and building clearing. During one exercise, while the cops took control of a subject they encountered, and continued to clear the building -- he commented "We'd just have backed out and called in air support for a fire mission..." Yeah -- kind of frowned on in LE. )

Civilian training can learn from military and LE -- but needs to be structured to the realities of civilian use of a force. A cop is justified, authorized, even required to initiate force in situations where a civilian lacks the justification to do so -- and if the training doesn't recognize that, it's a disservice in the extreme.

 

[jks9199]

They carry shoulder holsters so the gun is out their way when they are seated in the cockpit.

But you did say "no time for a shoulder holster" Just like I wouldn't recommend carrying a pistol in the middle of your chest for most people -- it can make sense for some people like breachers or some special ops types.

 

[CB Jones]

But you did say "no time for a shoulder holster" Just like I wouldn't recommend carrying a pistol in the middle of your chest for most people -- it can make sense for some people like breachers or some special ops types.

True. Point taken.

 

[Dirty Dog]

There is never a time for the cross draw or shoulder holster.

Nonsense. Carrying behind the hip while driving is uncomfortable, tears up the car seat, and makes the gun ridiculously difficult to reach.
Now, my solution is to transfer the gun from the hip to a holster mounted in the car as I get in, but a shoulder holster is another viable option.

 

[Dirty Dog]

I don't cross my body when I draw. And my weapon is further back on my hip. I've experimented a lot, carried a lot. This is how I carry. At 56,not likely to change.

Sounds like you're carrying the gun in the classic "small of the back" position, but shifted closer to the hip. Is that accurate? If so, your draw would be essentially the same as any other "behind the hip" carrier, except palm out rather than palm in. I've carried that way myself, temporarily, following a shoulder injury.

With the gun turned the other way it minimizes your chance of a self inflicted mortal wound.

I've only been in the ER since 1979, but I cannot recall ever, not even once, seeing anything remotely resembling a mortal wound caused by a negligent discharge from a behind the hip draw. Every wound I've treated caused by an ND during the draw or holstering movement has been a leg wound. And by far the majority of these have involved carrying without a holster. Appendix carry would be #2.

 

[CB Jones]

makes the gun ridiculously difficult to reach.

I respectfully disagree.

I have two friends who both were involved in lethal force encounters while sitting inside their vehicles and both had no problem drawing their guns from IWB on their hip.

Furthermore, one of t"the situations were an armed robbery of him from his driver side window. Due to the gun being on his right hip, the robber did not see him draw his weapon and my friend had it out and pointed at him before the robber realized it. From a cross draw position, most likely the robber would have seen him reaching for and drawing the weapon.

 

[CB Jones]

Sounds like you're carrying the gun in the classic "small of the back" position, but shifted closer to the hip. Is that accurate? If so, your draw would be essentially the same as any other "behind the hip" carrier, except palm out rather than palm in. I've carried that way myself, temporarily, following a shoulder injury.



I've only been in the ER since 1979, but I cannot recall ever, not even once, seeing anything remotely resembling a mortal wound caused by a negligent discharge from a behind the hip draw. Every wound I've treated caused by an ND during the draw or holstering movement has been a leg wound. And by far the majority of these have involved carrying without a holster. Appendix carry would be #2.

Ok, but we follow the laser rule and we are not going to teach or recommend a draw that leads to muzzling your torso after you have withdrawn your weapon from the holster. Period. That is just our safety rules.

You don't point a loaded gun at anything you don't intend to shoot....including yourself.

To remedy this the shooter has to move the gun down and around his body....which creates a less efficient draw and a disadvantage in a gun fight.

In a gun fight I want the gun coming out and up on target not out down and around then up on target.