I see the importance of back-ups, but advocating things that are untrue just sound silly.

"One is none, two is one"

Redundancy can be very useful. However too much means too heavy, to bulky, less stable packs, more energy spend to carry everything, etc.

As disaster preparedness turn to hobby, just like any hobbies; you get to much stuff you don't need...

I do not buy into the idea that I need two of everything, but there are some basics that it probably makes sense to have a backup for.

Of course, some things are just too big and bulky to make that practical even if it was desirable.

Well, "one is none" is not math, it's basically distilling a principle. It pertains more to Murphy's Law than math. And for anything which you consider critical (however you define "critical"), then it makes perfect sense.

If you consider fire starting critical, then having only one method available that can break, be lost, malfunction, get wet, etc. totally deprives you of that critical function. Depending on the conditions (including your own physical condition) you may have no other options besides what you brought with you.

The saying makes an easy way to remember that things go wrong and that you should plan for that and have alternatives for the most important things.

Consider it a thumbrule rather than a mantra. Don't read more into it than that.

Some people seem to be completely unaware that things go wrong.

The older I get the more amazed I am that anything goes right!

Yes, to all of it.

The way some people on the 'net are about sharps, you'd think the phrase was "five is one, one is none"...



Good point. There have been plenty of times when things did not go wrong for me, but an awareness of Murphy's Law kept me vigilant to the risk.

What he said.

"One is none and two is one" is not meant to be taken literally as math, nor is it an untruth. Of course one is one and not none. It's a principle of preparedness that encourages us to have backup for critical items. One is better than none, but that one can fail you, quite easily sometimes. Having redundancy in some places just makes sense.

Further, it encourages us to carry two different methods to achieve each goal. Lighters rock, for example. They're excellent fire starting tools, but if your fingers are frozen or you run out of fuel, you might have better luck with a ferro rod. Or vice versa. A ferro rod will give you 1,000 fires even if it gets wet, but maybe you need a more instantaneous fire like a Zippo can provide be cause you fell in the icy creek and don't have time to spend with your tinder.

If you don't agree with the theory, that's fine too. Some of us overdo it sometimes, and I could well be the president of the club, but better IMO to have it and not need it than the other way around. The only person that has to carry my pack is me and it's up to me to prioritize my needs. I ask for feedback, looking for new ideas to save weight/space and to identify gaps, and it's always an interesting process. Some people say I have too much fire and not enough fire power, as an example, or not enough electronics but too many lights. I listen, think, and adjust as I see fit. In the end, it's up to me. If you want to carry only singles of everything, go for it. We'll hopefully never need it anyway, but my redundancies make me feel better and I'm happy to carry them, practice with them, and try to figure out how to improve on them.

True. The best way to address this problem, IMO, is to get out there and really test your gear and yourself. Test your kit setup. Try new things. Find what works best for you, and always be on the lookout for ways to improve. The biggest investment you need to make is time. Experience is the best teacher. Don't let your gear or you collect dust!

Fire is a good example of backups.I carry a BIC lighter as my primary fire starter.I also carry a ferro rod (LMF army model) as my second means of fire.I also have a SPARKLITE in my kit.It is there if ONE of my TWO hands becomes injured it can be used ONE handed.The SPARKLITE is small and liteweight it is not an issue to bring it along.The ferro rod can be used as an night time signal device.That is the method I use, is it important enough or can it be used for more than purpose.....


BOATMAN
John

I agree with the original post. I also agree with the insightful comments thereafter. I understand it's a catchy phrase to reinforce the concept of redundancy. I get that.

However, here's why I agree with the original post as well. The beginning part of the phrase is too much hyperbole, specifically, "one is none." If that's true, what is "none?" For example, if I have one good fire starter in my bag, is that practically the same as having zero good fire starters in my bag? No, that's ridiculous. The comparison is not even close.

Let's use concrete numbers for you logical folks. Having one good fire starter equals a score of about 90%. Having two good fire starters equals a score of about 98%. Having zero good fire starters equals a score of 0%. So, you get an A- for one good fire starter and an A+ for two good fire starters. You are beyond failing if you have zero good fire starters.

For those of us who already understand the value of redundancy when it comes to packing stuff, one is one, and two is two.

I think I would interpret the saying in more black and white terms, instead of gradations like 90% versus 98%. Like pass/fail.

Having none of some critical item is obviously a fail. Having just one item is either a pass or fail, depending on which side of Murphy's Law you happen to fall on in any given situation. But if a critical "fail" can be avoided by having a backup, then it seems only logical to do that.

Of course, it is overkill to apply the saying to every single item in your kit, and there, I wholeheartedly agree that the "math" doesn't add up. And having five of an item is not necessarily any more helpful than two of something, or perhaps not even necessary at all. I may survive some situation just fine without a bandana, let alone five bandanas, say.

"One is None" could be discouraging for those new to prepping/self-reliance. Not to mention us addicts, who can easily decipher it to mean we need four of everything. I never thought of it that way before today.

Dave Canterbury (who I think gets credit for this motto) has a more specialized audience than your run of the mill, Red Cross/FEMA says I should get everything on this list to be be prepared for 72 hours person, but Discovery and the ubiquitous YouTube have probably broadened his viewership.

To his credit, DC advocates for the 5 Cs of survivability first (Cutting, Cordage, Container, Combustion and Cover), then 5 more. (The 10 Cs, which I can't remember because I don't think in those terms.) It seems that only after his 10 Cs are met, does he suggest redundancy. In my mind, this says get your basics covered first, and then worry about adding more. That gets lost in the face of his oft repeated "One is none and two is one" motto.

A good example is the "Survival Summary" thread. Worrying about multiple redundancies (in that case weapons) makes no sense until you've got all your other necessities covered.

http://forums.equipped.org/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=258980#Post258980).

That said, you have to know your own abilities. I watched Myke Hawk survive in the Amazon with just a machete and thought two things:

1. The other guy that was forced to try it and lost his machete, probably should have had a backup. Myke would be better off with a backup too, just in case it breaks or something.

2. I could never do that. If I ever go, I'm taking everything I need, and backups for the most important stuff, kept on my body as well as in my pack.

One is none if one breaks. And if you are ultralite, you may be SOL in that case.

In the interests of weight, I carry a folding knife and a Leatherman. I carry a lighter and a ferro rod. I carry a Maglite, and a windup radio/light/siren combo (covers 3 areas).

I don't carry a backup for everything, just the important stuff.

Redundancy makes sense in some situations. For years, the standard for cavers has been three independent light sources of light. In a cavern, being without light basically means you can do nothing - the darkness is complete. Like many posters here, I also agree that redundancy in fire making often makes sense. Fire is critical and the means of ignition are rather light and easy to carry

I have usually seen the "one is none" routine applied to guns and knives, where it is just plain silly, seemingly an excuse to sell one more firearm and one more blade.

When I prepare for a backpack or a climb, I adopt the principle of "elegance" -I want critical and necessary items, but nothing in excess - the weight penalty is prohibitive. Multipurpose items are quite handy here. Sometimes the better strategy is not to simply pile on more gear, but have a plan
B involving improvisation and alternatives.

I can understand redundancy when it comes to the essentials. If your backup is lite and small enough then why not carry it. Its just that a person doesn't need to have redundancy for everything or carry a lot of extra weight. DC always gets my motor running when he advocates "bomb proof" equipment. A lot of that bomb proof equipment is heavy and not practical. Some lite weight redundancy could be applied and still be lighter than his packs.

But then again, it seems like everyone out there has got some sort of slogan or catch phrase to grab people's attention or to provide a signature.

DC uses the "2 is 1, 1 is none". I've also heard "The more you know, the less you carry" and "If you're not always prepared, you're never prepared", etc.

I don't entirely agree. A knife is so critical a piece of gear that having a spare blade (like on a multi) just makes sense to me. As far as guns are concerned, I never carry more than one unless its a class, practice or competition that calls for more than one, but I imagine combat is a different story.

"When in doubt, leave it out!" is another way of putting it, at least if one is traveling by foot. I try to force myself to follow that rule. No matter how fit you are, when you carry less you can travel further and faster. Climbers have always known that carrying too much emergency bivvy gear on a day climb often insures that you will need to bivvy! You want to try to find the Goldilocks point: Not too much, not too little....just the right amount of gear!

That being said, it is sometimes worth it to carry a back up of a few really essential items. In the bottom of my pack I always have a small lightweight folding knife and some extra firemaking gear, and a few other odds and ends. In winter I always carry an extra very small headlamp. Because of the unstable and sometimes severe climate around these parts I always carry a lot more clothing than I think I will need.

On advantage of traveling lighter is that one can take other stuff just for fun. For example, in Alaska there is always the opportunity for really neat wildlife sightings. Hence I often carry a good pair of binoculars. They are a bit heavy but are just the thing when you spot a familly of bears on the next ridge over, and want to stretch out on the tundra and watch them for awhile.

Not directly related to survival items , but related to the principle itself. Yesterday my DD needed a copy of some document for the school. I am a busy guy and even a simple reuqest like that stresses my nerves , however being a prepper I relaxed and told her to wait a minute until I retrieve a copy which should be nearby.

I checked my work bag. Sure enough there were copies of several documents, but not that one. I opened the trunk and grabbed the trunk bag where I was sure to have a copy. Again, there were other copies of different stuff, but not that one. Apparently, I used up those copies earlier and did not put any more.

Yesterday, I made TEN copies and scattered them around in the work bag , trunk bag ..etc. Today, my DD isn't going to school, yet I am not saved that trip. I have to go to school just to give them the document ... It's last day to submit the document or else she won't be registered for next year.

If I had the copy yesterday, I would have saved myself big hassle.
And it is not even a survival item.

Morale of the story : TEN is one, one is none !!

Maybe that thing was just taken out it´s original context. It´s just perfect for the military. It´s simple, easy to remember as it rhymes and can be applied to different contexts. You can apply it from everything from having backup for mission critical supplies to taking care of your buddies. I´m not calling military personal silly or dumb but stress and sleep deprivation are sure to take their toll and they are not known to improve mental abilities.
For preparedness context it should be taken with liberal dose of salt. If a backup is sensible take it, otherwise let it be. If you can go to the next shop and just buy a replacement, it may not even be sensible to even own the backup.
For blades having one for rough jobs and one for fine work makes sense. With guns it´s better to have just one that´s kept perfectly clean and in good repair than having two in moderate condition.

Just saw a fella leave the range when his AR firing pin broke,supposed to be a very rare occurance.....

I carry some spares for my AR including a firing pin, but so far my rifle hasn't had any of those issues.

I agree that "2-is-1, 1-is-none" falls flat as a truism, and can sometimes overstate things. Really, do you need to have two bandanas to be sure to have one? Now in the case of fire I can see the need for redundancy.

There are probably places or situations where a second firearm would be a high priority. Yet I would rarely have a 2nd one along. Perhaps if I had a chance to go on a once-in-a-lifetime hunt I'd have a spare rifle along. I do have a CCW permit, and I do carry a sidearm concealed where I can, but I never have a BUG. Considering that many police don't carry a second gun, I probably don't need to. I do carry at least one spare magazine, though.

Any gun can break but when I'm carrying an HK I feel my heart is more likely to fail than my sidearm!

I've never liked the phrase, I think this pretty much nails why:


I also find this to be true:


While having a backup blade is fine (and I do!), I've come to the realization that the probability of needing it is extremely low. You have to compound the probability of being in a true survival situation with the probability of either losing or breaking your primary knife (the latter being near impossible with many quality fixed blades now a days). This is the math that is important and, I have a feeling if one was to crunch the numbers, the probability of that backup blade being critical to survival has got to be getting close to lottery winning odds.

So, while I have no issue with having a backup blade, I can't buy into the idea that to not have one is some disastrous failure of planning.

so let us change the saying ---

Back up the 10 essentials.

ta dah.

A much better idea. Or carry extras.

The other thing is that chances are if it does break, it still may be at least partially usable.

Is your next thread going to instruct us that the sun doesn't actually rise, but, in fact, the earth rotates?

Numberwang!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-r6NY4Kl8Ms

That's probably a question for Bertrand Russell depending on your point of view!

"One is none, two is one"

Yet I never see the instructors who advocate this saying with two backpacks or two sleeping bags...

Yep. Those bromides make sense if you don't think about them.

You run into the same sort of problems with some people who "teach" gun safety who repeat "treat every gun as if it is loaded at all times" again and again.

(You shouldn't clean a loaded gun, so how exactly do you clean a gun if you treat it as loaded?)

Those people shouldn´t teach gun safety. Maybe they should not even be allowed to handle a gun. "at all times" can´t be right. It´s not only the cleaning thing. When you need to shoot, it should be loaded and not just treated as if it is. A "Click" instead of a "Bang" is bad enough on a hunting trip.
The "one is none ..." should just be left in the contexts where it actually makes sense.

They say that because there have been a number of people who have discharged what they thought was an unloaded gun while starting to clean it. You treat it like it is loaded by keeping pointed in a safe direction and keeping your booger picker off the trigger even while you are cleaning it. Its about making habits.

I have to disagree on the "Every gun is always loaded" analogy. I got into guns later in life. That single phrase has made me a safe, conscientious shooter. Whereas, without that phrase, I would have been making more safety mistakes. Even when cleaning a gun, I use the phrase. I treat the gun as if it's loaded until it's disassembled and the objects in front can be accurately described as gun parts, not a gun. Until then, I treat the gun as if it will fire when I pull the trigger.

Actually, I wish more people would use the phrase. I had to stop going to one gun range because the gunsmith seemed to make it a point that he was above the Four Safety Rules. When he was inspecting shotguns, he would point the muzzle in any direction he pleased. Do you understand how uncomfortable and tense that makes the entire environment? He may know the gun is unloaded, BUT I DON'T. How hard is it to treat the gun as if it's loaded and point the darn thing down range? If he would just adhere to the first safety rule alone, the range would not have lost this customer and all my friends.

Along the same lines, I am going to add to my earlier post. I do see the value in the phrase, "One is none, and two is one." The mere existence of this thread proves its value as being memorable. Just don't be a freakin' robot and take it literally always.

If you have to change the rules of math to match your philosophy...

Actually, the rule is: Treat every gun as if it is loaded until you yourself have checked it completely to insure it is empty of any rounds.

BTW: if you walk away, recheck it thoroughly upon your return, before you resume working on it.

Yep this is how I learned, but people just simplified and lost the 2nd part.

It is one of the fundamental commandments of gun safety, in fact. The basic reasoning is there are only two reasons for putting your finger on the trigger of any firearm, regardless of condition:

1. To knowingly and willfully discharge the firearm at an intended target.

2. To test the functionality of the firearm's action, after first clearing the firearm to ensure it is not loaded.

Pulling the trigger on a firearm to check if it is loaded is an unacceptable and illegitimate condition check. When I was in Baghdad, they had discharge barrels at certain checkpoints and facility entries. The purpose of these was to safely disengage the safety on an unloaded gun. You only put the muzzle of the firearm in the aperture of the barrel and pulled the trigger after you had already cleared the weapon. The barrel was a required safety device in case of human error. Lord help you if the gun discharged into the barrel and the sergeant heard it. But if he heard the sear disengage after you passed the barrel, it was your a$$.

Many firearms require to pull the trigger when you want to uncock them. That is one of the reasons I selected a P226 which has an extra lever for it.
Basically you are right. If there is no purpose that requires a finger on the trigger, don´t touch it.

Does looking cool for Hollywood film counts? Because you know it's mandatory as soon as you are handed a gun to put finger on trigger and perhaps aim at something/body.

There was a case where a guy held up a liquor store. He was caught on camera. He was wearing a mask, but the cops could identify that he had his trigger finger along the frame of the gun. From that, the cops concluded that he had some type military training. I thought that was funny. I habitually put my finger on the frame if I'm not about to fire the gun. I have no military training.

Anyway, the rule of "Every gun is always loaded" is simple, easy to remember, and has kept me safe. That's the whole point. Admittedly, there is a moment when I am forced to break that rule when I disassemble my gun to clean. I deeply contemplate breaking the rule, and as I am pulling the trigger I feel like the gun will fire even after I checked it multiple times. I like that aspect of the rule as well. Placing my finger on the trigger is always a big deal, and I'm OK with that.

Yes, extracting the bolt in many bolt action rifles requires the trigger be pulled. In that case the bolt is already open, so effectively clearing the firearm and physically preventing an accidental discharge. I believe Glock model semi-autos also require the trigger be pulled in the action closed position to allow the slide to be removed. The correct procedure for this requires cycling the action to clear the chamber including visual inspection of clear. Other firearm configurations may require similar procedures, always including manual clear and inspect of the chamber before depressing the trigger, so these items would meet the 2nd reason criteria I cited.

I believe Condition 2 on a 1911 type single action semi-auto is no longer generally recommended. The point is debatable, but it has been shown that condition 2 is likely the 2nd least safe condition as it introduced too many risks in carry and handling/manipulation, so only condition 1 (cocked and locked) or condition 3 (hammer down on an empty chamber) are the most safe methods of carry/operation of those firearms, and Condition Zero (cocked and unlocked) is unacceptable for general carry. From a purely safe perspective, manipulating the action on a live round when not actually engaging a target introduces unnecessary risk.

IIRC the 1911 was originally designed with a grip safety and no manual thumb safety with carriage in what we refer to as Condition Zero in mind; the grip safety is an excellent design. The Army made Colt add the manual thumb safety.

As I recall from years ago, those memories are covered in cobwebs.

No, it does not. Please don´t pick up habits like that. The life you save some day may be mine wink.
Firearms safety should not be neglected. Assuming is not good enough.
Pointing a gun in an unsafe direction is bound to harm someone some day.

They do.

I have a hunting rifle with a Mauser 98 system. The trigger is pulled with safety on when disengaging the hair trigger with a loaded chamber. I would not file that under either of the two criteria. I still think our basic understanding of when to put the finger on the trigger is the same.



The P226 is designed for condition 2 carry. I liked the fact that I could ease the hammer down without using the trigger. Getting used to that allows a stricter application of the rules you already stated.

Also, don't go barefoot in the Winter.

I have a hunting rifle with a Mauser 98 system. The trigger is pulled with safety on when disengaging the hair trigger with a loaded chamber. I would not file that under either of the two criteria. I still think our basic understanding of when to put the finger on the trigger is the same.



The original Mausers you would open the bolt, extracting the round, then pull the trigger to remove the bolt entirelt from the rifle. Not sure if you are "doing it wrong" or if the action has been changed. Have you tried opening the bolt first before using the trigger?

Well there is Hollywood 'Who Dares Wins' fantasy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydA5Y86crsw

Then there is 'Run away, run away, fight to live another day' reality.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AfWQoKv0UA

The original Mauser action has a holder for the action on the left side. It is pivoted out to allow removing the bolt. Pulling the trigger is not required.
The hunting rifle has a changed trigger. The original trigger is replaced with a German hair trigger. When the hair trigger is engaged, opening the bolt may cause accidental discharge. Putting on the safety and pulling the trigger is tought as standard procedure to disengage the hair trigger. This is a safe procedure as the safety holds the firing pin. Disengaging the hair trigger and removing the bolt are two different subjects