A gun used for personal protection should have a round chambered. There have been many guns past and present that do not have a firing pin safety that have been carried. If you are not comfortable carrying a round in the chamber for that particular firearm as a result of it not having a firing pin safety, you should probably get a newer model that does have the firing pin safety. The Beretta 84FS is on the CA approved list and should be a direct replacement for what you have.

Originally Posted by VAMarine

A gun used for personal protection should have a round chambered. There have been many guns past and present that do not have a firing pin safety that have been carried. If you are not comfortable carrying a round in the chamber for that particular firearm as a result of it not having a firing pin safety, you should probably get a newer model that does have the firing pin safety. The Beretta 84FS is on the CA approved list and should be a direct replacement for what you have.

Well, I absolutely will not carry a firearm with the hammer down that does not have a firing pin safety. So guess that means that in my opinion my Model 84 cannot be safely carried in a holster with a round chambered. Too bad; it is a beautiful firearm and very very accurate for its size and caliber.

I do not agree that it is always the right thing to carry a firearm with one in the pipe. For soldiers and LEOs it is, civilians I am less sure. Anyway, on the very rare occasions when I carry it is out in the boondocks.

Originally Posted by Redleg

I have a Beretta Model 84 (original model; identical to a Browning BDA if I am not mistaken). It has a slide safety, but no firing pin safety. Given that it has no firing pin safety, in my opinion there is no safe way to carry the gun with a round chambered. Is that the general consensus? If it had a FP safety I would say that it was fine to carry it with a round in the pipe, the hammer down, the safety on, with the intent that the first round would be DA.

Am I right about this?

To answer your question simply and directly: No, you are not right.

No mechanical safety will prevent you from making a negligent discharge, if your brain is not always focussed on the subject at hand.
A firearm with no mechanical safety at all could be safely carried, fully loaded, by someone whose mind stays on the job.
Mechanical safety devices are only backup. Dependence upon one or more mechanical safeties leads to carelessness. The real safety device is found between your ears.

Originally Posted by Steve M1911A1

To answer your question simply and directly: No, you are not right.

No mechanical safety will prevent you from making a negligent discharge, if your brain is not always focussed on the subject at hand.
A firearm with no mechanical safety at all could be safely carried, fully loaded, by someone whose mind stays on the job.
Mechanical safety devices are only backup. Dependence upon one or more mechanical safeties leads to carelessness. The real safety device is found between your ears.

The above is unhelpful and beside the point. I am quite sure that we all agree that care in handling firearms is always job one when doing so. I carried a loaded firearm in tactical situations in my day, commanded a large number of soldiers who were doing so, and I know something about this. I also know that firearm design matters, and that is the point of this thread, which point the above quote fails to address in any useful fashion. There is a reason that the US Army required its issue-sidearm to be very safe to carry loaded. The 1911 is very safe to carry with one in the pipe. The M9 is perhaps even safer to carry loaded. The US Army obviously agrees with me that firearm design matters.

My point, which again the above quote fails to address, is that the Model 84, if carried with the hammer back and safety on, appears to me to lack sufficient mechanical safety features to make carrying for a long time viable. If it had a firing pin safety it could be carried with the hammer down, safety on, such that the first shot would require a flick of the thumb safety and a double action first shot followed by a single-action subsequent shot. (Similar to the M9, in fact.) But the lack of firing pin safety appears to make this unviable. Beretta later added a firing pin safety to the later model 84 series in tacit agreement with the foregoing.

The 84 is a fine nightstand gun but I guess I would not carry it holstered with a round chambered. Which for me is not a deal breaker since I only carry out in the boonies anyway.

You leave me speechless.

Originally Posted by Steve M1911A1

You leave me speechless.

I take it you do not disagree with the points I make above, which is that while care in handling firearms is important always, mechanical design is also a consideration in how to carry a firearm and whether to carry it chambered at all.

Your earlier post disagreed with this, which is OK with me. I disagree with you.