Condition 3?

[GardoneVT]

I have to ask; why?

It seems like the CCW proletariats are Condition 3 fans by the numbers. Yesterday I saw no less then three people show off their fun-size compact 1911s ; all of them carried chamber empty.

What gives? Is it because untrained folk see or have NDs and decide caution is the better part of valor?

[Kyle Reese]

I have to ask; why?

It seems like the CCW proletariats are Condition 3 fans by the numbers. Yesterday I saw no less then three people show off their fun-size compact 1911s ; all of them carried chamber empty.

What gives? Is it because untrained folk see or have NDs and decide caution is the better part of valor?

I simply attribute it to lack of training and confidence in their individual skill sets and chosen defensive firearm. Instruction under a competent professional can mitigate this, but some people don't know what they don't know. Either that or they heard that the Israeli's do it, so therefore they should strive to emulate them.

[JHC]

I have to ask; why?

It seems like the CCW proletariats are Condition 3 fans by the numbers. Yesterday I saw no less then three people show off their fun-size compact 1911s ; all of them carried chamber empty.

What gives? Is it because untrained folk see or have NDs and decide caution is the better part of valor?

Fear of the ND is what they have told me straight up. I would do it if I had to carry a Glock without a holster. I've shot a few FAST from 3 for kicks. It has vast disadvantages but I don't consider it unarmed.

[GJM]

Considering action type, skill level and holster choices, a large percentage of CCW folks are well suited to condition three carry.

[SLG]

Considering action type, skill level and holster choices, a large percentage of CCW folks are well suited to condition three carry.

I'm quite happy they carry that way.

Anyway, GJM, you're in the wrong thread. There are Magnum PI issues to be resolved.

[HCM]

I have to ask; why?

What gives? Is it because untrained folk see or have NDs and decide caution is the better part of valor?

This ^^^is one factor.

Others include:

- just not that comfortable / familiar with guns is a big one.
- because that's how grandpa taught me with his hunting rifle / shotgun.
- Because that's how dad / grandpa carried a 1911 in the U.S. Military
- Because Col Applegate / Sykes / Fairburn Shanghai Municipal Police
- Because Israeli !

While there are certainly disadvantages from a defensive standpoint, but overall is it really a bad thing for a person with minimal to no training to carry condition 3?

[GardoneVT]

This ^^^is one factor.

Others include:

- just not that comfortable / familiar with guns is a big one.
- because that's how grandpa taught me with his hunting rifle / shotgun.
- Because that's how dad / grandpa carried a 1911 in the U.S. Military
- Because Col Applegate / Sykes / Fairburn Shanghai Municipal Police
- Because Israeli !

While there are certainly disadvantages from a defensive standpoint, but overall is it really a bad thing for a person with minimal to no training to carry condition 3?
No, ive no objection to the method itself given the properties GJM mentioned above. I was merely curious about the disconnect between Tactical Gunternet practice of loaded carry vs on the street reality of C3.

[BehindBlueI's]

Two types, from what I've seen.

1) They are scared of their guns and they believe they'll be able to see trouble coming, have both hands available, or be able to rack the gun on their belt while being jerked around in a fight the same as they can standing still on the range.

2) They were taught to do so in the military but do not understand the reason for it or the differences between what they were doing in the military and CCW.

[fixer]

Years upon years ago, I used to carry condition 3 and was nearly a zealot for this method. It had nothing at all to do with Israel.

I simply concluded that the greater risk to me and others was a ND and not a criminal encounter. In short I did not trust myself to carry with a full chamber--regardless of action type.

Along the way a few things happened.

#1) I found several videos showing a defensive scenario where condition 3 would have put someone on the losing side of a battle.
#2) I started carrying a TDA gun which gave me substantial confidence on a layer of protection against ND.
#3) Running drills from C3 made it absolutely clear that it put me at a disadvantage.

After maturity in carrying with a full chamber on a TDA style gun, I've moved onto carrying with full chamber on striker guns.

I no longer recommend C3 carry for folks unless they have a life long pattern of being a clutz, clumsy, or forgetful. Even then I recommend something with an external safety or heavy DA trigger.

[ReverendMeat]

Two types, from what I've seen.

1) They are scared of their guns and they believe they'll be able to see trouble coming, have both hands available, or be able to rack the gun on their belt while being jerked around in a fight the same as they can standing still on the range.

2) They were taught to do so in the military but do not understand the reason for it or the differences between what they were doing in the military and CCW.

I'd agree with this. Most folks I've met who do C3 carry look at my like I've got a dick growing out of my forehead when I suggest they consider carrying with a round chambered. Many flat-out don't even think about it as anything approaching a viable option. And the prior service guys who say "because that's how we did it in IRQ/AFG" make me sad.

Also I've never heard "cuz israelis do it" as sole justification for C3 carry, fwiw.

[HCM]

Also I've never heard "cuz israelis do it" as sole justification for C3 carry, fwiw.

I have though I heard it much more prior to 9/11 when they were considered bad asses. LMaybe that makes me old.

It may also be a regional / North Eastern thing.

The condition 3 carry / eye level index shooting thing which Sykes, Fairburn originated and the Israelis subsequently made sense in their situation - arming large numbers of people with minimal initial training who will get little to no sustainment training.

Unfortunately many people mistakenly believe this system to be the first first choice of those who adopted it rather than what it was, which was a last resort or the best they could do under the circumstances.

[Dagga Boy]

I am very simple on this. If they are carrying condition 3, they should not be carrying a semi auto pistol and should be carrying a revolver.

[Ntexwheels]

I am very simple on this. If they are carrying condition 3, they should not be carrying a semi auto pistol and should be carrying a revolver.

Or carry a brick.

[Casual Friday]

I had this discussion not long ago with a coworker who believes that carrying a chambered gun doesn't belong anywhere in the civilian world, unless it's a "high threat" area. I didn't try to convince him to change his carry method, we are all responsible for our choices and the consequences, but I did give him my reasons why I feel it's a bad idea and why I carry with a round chambered.

[Wheeler]

People carry what they want and how it makes them feel comfortable. It's not my place to try to change their minds nor to deride their choice anymore than to tell them how to spend their money.

If I had a choice is not want them watching my back either, but that's my choice to make just like they made theirs.

[GJM]

I can think of many scenarios where condition three carry of the handgun would be a disadvantage, but I wonder if there are statistics showing what percentage of actual engagements where condition three would be a factor? Different system, but I routinely carry shotguns, bolt guns and lever guns condition three in the field, and feel that is the best practice for me balancing readiness and safety. I do practice working the action as part of mounting the long gun.

[Beat Trash]

There are times when condition 3 is actually not a bad choice. Field guns, carried in the field, like GJM just mentioned. Guns kept in a static position for home defense. Keeping a gun that is kept for HD in condition 3 adds another layer of safety for some who may still be in the process of waking up.

Patrol Rifles and LE shotguns are traditionally carried in the vehicle in "Cruiser Ready" which is basically condition 3, with the safety engaged. I traditionally charge the weapon as the muzzle and my left foot both exit the vehicle.

Carrying a gun on your person in condition 3 is ill advised. I can think of a few incidents both as an off-duty LEO and pre-LEO when I was a small businessman where I felt the need to draw and conceal the weapon without the suspect being aware. The situation had not arisen to the point where I felt the need to display the weapon, but it was heading that way. The element of surprise was something I wanted on my side. The sound of racking a slide would greatly escalate the situation at a time when I was still trying to either deescalate or to subtly move to a better position or to do something to gain a tactical advantage.

If I am with loved ones, wife, children, ect. and my non-dominant hand is busy pushing them towards safety, t's kind of hard to do the "Israeli Draw" one handed. Same if I am in a weapon retention struggle. If one hand is injured. Yes I know you can rack a slide one handed by using the rear sight, or front sight against something. But it's kind of hard to do under stress, in unknown lighting conditions. and while you are moving your kids to cover. And no one handed emergency charging method will be as fast as already having the gun in condition 1.

I really wish S&W still made a 3" round butt model 64/63 or 10/13. These would be an excellent choice for those feeling the need to CCW in condition 3.

But then when Tom Selleck played Magnum PI, it did look cool when he would rack the slide in slow motion for the camera...

[Al T.]

if there are statistics showing what percentage of actual engagements where condition three would be a factor?

I am of the opinion that Lott's research and bolstered by Claude Werner's analysis, that the mere fact that someone has a firearm when they need it is probably the most important thing. Flip side though, is that if having a firearm in Condition Three got someone killed, it wouldn't show up in either study. Sort of like when an ER Nurse buddy was talking about his thoughts on GSWs. I pointed out that he only got to work on the survivors. :p

[1slow]

Circa 1973 I was beginning to shoot 1911 .45acp. I was nervous about condition 1 (chambered round, cocked and on safety). I tried chambering on the draw as well as thumb cocking with a round chambered.

After a huge # of dry reps I came to the following conclusions.

By not carrying the 1911 condition 1 vs. any other method I was much more likely to: 1) hurt myself, 2) be hurt by my attacker because I was slow or fumbled.

I never had any problems with condition 1 with a 1911. I have since carried Sig TDAs, Glocks, HKs all with chambered rounds with no issues.

Having since been though ECQC multiple times, I really do not want to try to chamber a round while being attacked. Enough goes wrong without adding having to chamber a round especially 1 handed while fighting with the other hand.

I have also seen, in classes, the chamber on the draw result in: 1) bad muzzle discipline endangering people behind, 2) getting clothes caught in the mechanism, and 3) inducing a failure to feed.

nyeti has it right. Carry a revolver rather than an semi auto in condition 3.

[GJM]

1973, was that black or smokeless powder? :)

[BehindBlueI's]

I can think of many scenarios where condition three carry of the handgun would be a disadvantage, but I wonder if there are statistics showing what percentage of actual engagements where condition three would be a factor? Different system, but I routinely carry shotguns, bolt guns and lever guns condition three in the field, and feel that is the best practice for me balancing readiness and safety. I do practice working the action as part of mounting the long gun.

I have tried with my stats. The difficulty is knowing if the person would have won if things had been different. One case that I believe it would have was a guy who got the gun out but never got a round chambered during a struggle with two assailants and was killed.

[Cap]

funny...i started a very similar/same thread yesterday on another site

it's always been my opinion a defense gun should be loaded .
I'm not dogmatic about it though..if a person isn't comfortable with a loaded gun, they shouldn't have it loaded then...not unless/until they're comfortable with such


..L.T.A.

[nwhpfan]

Consider what condition you would choose your pistol to be in if you had to put it in a back-pack or duffle bag? What about canoeing or white water rafting and you put it in a plastic bag, then into back pack or seal able container. One bag for the mag, other for the pistol? Or chamber empty mag inserted (condition 3) then into the bag. I guess their are some scenarios where Cond. 3 make sense to me. I'd be interested in what others do in those scenarios.

[Kevin B.]

Consider what condition you would choose your pistol to be in if you had to put it in a back-pack or duffle bag? What about canoeing or white water rafting and you put it in a plastic bag, then into back pack or seal able container. One bag for the mag, other for the pistol? Or chamber empty mag inserted (condition 3) then into the bag. I guess their are some scenarios where Cond. 3 make sense to me. I'd be interested in what others do in those scenarios.

When I kayaked with a pistol it was Condition 1, in the holster, in a dry bag.

[SLG]

Consider what condition you would choose your pistol to be in if you had to put it in a back-pack or duffle bag? What about canoeing or white water rafting and you put it in a plastic bag, then into back pack or seal able container. One bag for the mag, other for the pistol? Or chamber empty mag inserted (condition 3) then into the bag. I guess their are some scenarios where Cond. 3 make sense to me. I'd be interested in what others do in those scenarios.

If I have a pistol, which I always do, it is never off my body. Always the same condition. 1. The only time I choose to carry a long gun C3 is if it is not in my hands. Car trunk, truck vault, etc.

[JHC]

This ^^^is one factor.

Others include:

- just not that comfortable / familiar with guns is a big one.
- because that's how grandpa taught me with his hunting rifle / shotgun.
- Because that's how dad / grandpa carried a 1911 in the U.S. Military
- Because Col Applegate / Sykes / Fairburn Shanghai Municipal Police
- Because Israeli !

While there are certainly disadvantages from a defensive standpoint, but overall is it really a bad thing for a person with minimal to no training to carry condition 3?

Occasionly it's been a family member and I worry they'll foul the charging. We've stayed on this till they get over the hump.

[GJM]

While SLG has the skill set, most people carrying a long gun do not possess the discipline to keep from muzzling others.

Where it would be considered taboo to carry a chamber loaded handgun in your hands, all day, many don't give a second thought to the C1 long gun. This can lead to people shooting others and themselves by accident. A forum member was involved this fall with a call out on a hunter that shot himself in his own foot with a .300 magnum, with predictably ugly consequences.

[HCM]

[/B]

Occasionly it's been a family member and I worry they'll foul the charging. We've stayed on this till they get over the hump.

The point is though, you trained them out of it. Just to be clear I'm not a fan or general advocate of Condition 3 carry of handguns. I agree with Nyeti such minimally trained people are better off with a revolver.

We I refer to minimally trained I'm referring to people who will get 4 to 8 hours of training during which they will fire less than 50 rounds and never get any further training. This is typical of the training the 1920's era SMP and Israeli Civilians in the 1940's received.

[HCM]

While SLG has the skill set, most people carrying a long gun do not possess the discipline to keep from muzzling others.

Where it would be considered taboo to carry a chamber loaded handgun in your hands, all day, many don't give a second thought to the C1 long gun. This can lead to people shooting others and themselves by accident. A forum member was involved this fall with a call out on a hunter that shot himself in his own foot with a .300 magnum, with predictably ugly consequences.

Agreed on skill sets. Gun handling is an under appreciated skill set.

Another consideration is modern handguns are more mechanically drop safe than most long guns.

[Wheeler]

While SLG has the skill set, most people carrying a long gun do not possess the discipline to keep from muzzling others.

Where it would be considered taboo to carry a chamber loaded handgun in your hands, all day, many don't give a second thought to the C1 long gun. This can lead to people shooting others and themselves by accident. A forum member was involved this fall with a call out on a hunter that shot himself in his own foot with a .300 magnum, with predictably ugly consequences.

This is why I beat muzzle and trigger discipline into my son.

[JHC]

The point is though, you trained them out of it. Just to be clear I'm not a fan or general advocate of Condition 3 carry of handguns. I agree with Nyeti such minimally trained people are better off with a revolver.

We I refer to minimally trained I'm referring to people who will get 4 to 8 hours of training during which they will fire less than 50 rounds and never get any further training. This is typical of the training the 1920's era SMP and Israeli Civilians in the 1940's received.

+1 totally. I'm tracking.

[1slow]

1973, was that black or smokeless powder? :)

Unique, dirty but smokeless.

[Ed L]

- Because Col Applegate / Sykes / Fairburn Shanghai Municipal Police


A quick historical note: Fairbairn was the one who developed the system for the Shanghai Municipal Police. This was in the 1920s when some of the issue guns like the Colt 1903 .380 had miniscule safeties and the training course allotted a whopping 60 rounds of ammo. When responding to trouble the police where trained to draw their gun and chamber a round.

He began teaching the standard Shanghai Municipal Police Patrolman to carry Chamber Empty, but he later migrated to a round in the chamber-especially when teaching during WWII.

For the original Shanghai Municipal Police, he began with teaching chamber empty carry. The SMP carried several handguns depending on Nationality & Race. The Sikhs carried .455 Webbly revolvers. Officers who were European or Russian carried Colt 1911s. And Asian officers, who often had smaller hands, carried Colt 1903 .380s. The Colt .380s had tiny thumb safeties that were very hard to manipulate. I believe there was an instance where a police officer died because he forgot to disengage the safety.

The total number of rounds fired in initial training was something like 50-80. Fairbairn wanted a system that worked with all guns with the very limited training that they had.

Further, police officers would have their guns issued from the arsenal before their shift and return them afterwards. The procedure was they would be issued a gun, insert a magazine into the magazine well. When they returned the gun, they removed the magazine from the magazine well. Not having to chamber or unchamber a round made the administrative handling easier when they returned the gun.

The philosophy for using the gun was that if they knew they were about to enter an affray, they would draw the gun and chamber a round. This is assuming that they have time.

Fairbairn was contradictory at times. On P. 5 of his book Shooting To Live which he wrote as a manual for the SMP, Fairbairn writes: "The average shooting affray is a matter of split seconds. If you take much longer than a third of a second to fire your first shot, you will not be the one to tell the newspapers about it."

Later when Fairbairn trained OSS operatives in WWII he taught carrying a round loaded in the chamber.

[StraitR]

My thoughts on Condition 3...

1- Comfort level. crawl - walk - run. Until people are comfortable and trust themselves, it will stay C3. To me, this is the only valid reason since it tells me that they're at least concerned with safety. Can be corrected with training.

2- Mindset failure. - "I have a gun, so I'm good". Typically disconnected and naive in all aspects of life. Very difficult to change this mindset with words. Generally takes a very negative personal experience to open their eyes.

3- Dunning-Krueger - "I'll just rack it if I need it". Keep moving, there's nothing you can do, they already know everything.

None of this bothers me if the same people using C3 have no interest in acquiring more knowledge, skill, and experience. I learned long ago that I cannot change a persons outlook on such things in a single conversation, so I don't even reach for the light switch anymore. People are either at place where they're interested in learning more, or they're not. Those that are will go in search of answers and ultimately switch their own lights on.

I happily have extensive firearm conversations with family, friends, and friends of friends that bring guns up in interest, but I don't initiate the conversations anymore.

[SLG]

I am very simple on this. If they are carrying condition 3, they should not be carrying a semi auto pistol and should be carrying a revolver.

Sorry i missed this. This is just terrible advice. Why force them to carry 6 empty chambers when they can carry just one empty chamber?

:-)

[nwhpfan]

So I carried Cond. 3 today and I'm interested in what others would do. I was snowboarding. Essentially wearing active outdoor wear, going down the mountain, crashing, etc. I had my pistol stuffed in my back back, a Glock 34. There was no other place to carry it. If I needed to use my pistol, I probably had about 30 second draw. I guess I don't see the drawback or the criticism. I'm not actually carrying the gun so having it loaded just didn't seem like the right thing to do to me.

[David S.]

I am very simple on this. If they are carrying condition 3, they should not be carrying a semi auto pistol and should be carrying a revolver.

Darryl (or whoever), can you expand on this? What does a revolver do that a semi-auto doesn't in this regard?

[1slow]

The modern revolver is carried fully loaded and is thus quicker/easier into the fight than a empty chamber auto. I have seen those that will carry a fully loaded revolver but carry an auto empty chamber.

Their life their choice.

[Lomshek]

Fear of the ND is what they have told me straight up.


This ^^^is one factor.
...overall is it really a bad thing for a person with minimal to no training to carry condition 3?

Disadvantages to C3 (beyond a slower to bring into action gun) -

1- The same person with minimal training is likely to foul charging the weapon when they're rushed (based on the number of noobs I teach the basics to).

2 - C3 encourages the "It's not loaded so I can be sloppy with safety" mindset in folks who already have horrible trigger and muzzle discipline.

3 - Anecdotally there are plenty of "It happened to me" stories of C3 carriers who somehow got a round in the chamber and because they "knew" the chamber was empty weren't in the habit of checking the chamber before disassembly or finger banging who then put holes in things like TV's, walls and people.

Folks with minimal training are a safety hazard no matter what or how they carry. A revolver with an 18 pound DA trigger is probably safest but is going to suck for bystanders standing beside the intended target.

[BehindBlueI's]

Darryl (or whoever), can you expand on this? What does a revolver do that a semi-auto doesn't in this regard?

Some folks are more at ease with a gun that they can see the hammer of, and will carry fully loaded. You can also carry over an empty chamber and still have the gun go off on the first shot as the cartridge to the left or right (depending on cylinder rotation direction) is the one that fires when you fire the gun, not the one that's under the hammer before the hammer starts moving backward. I've known a hand full of folks who still carry over an empty because they don't really believe the gun is drop safe.

[JHC]

So I carried Cond. 3 today and I'm interested in what others would do. I was snowboarding. Essentially wearing active outdoor wear, going down the mountain, crashing, etc. I had my pistol stuffed in my back back, a Glock 34. There was no other place to carry it. If I needed to use my pistol, I probably had about 30 second draw. I guess I don't see the drawback or the criticism. I'm not actually carrying the gun so having it loaded just didn't seem like the right thing to do to me.

Totally legit IMO.

[StraitR]

Totally legit IMO.

Agreed. I should have noted in my initial response that I was referring to holstered, on the person carry only.

[Tamara]

You can also carry over an empty chamber and still have the gun go off on the first shot as the cartridge to the left or right (depending on cylinder rotation direction)...

To the right. The cartridge to the right would fire because good, God-fearing 'Murrican cylinders rotate counter-clockwise.

[Dagga Boy]

Darryl (or whoever), can you expand on this? What does a revolver do that a semi-auto doesn't in this regard?
Many people carry condition three because of two things. Fear of a cocked gun that depends on a safety, and an inability to easily figure out a weapons condition. I will stand by my assessment that a vast majority of folks in this country carrying pistols cannot do a "safe" loaded chamber verification on their guns. This is not an issue with a revolver.

The modern revolver is carried fully loaded and is thus quicker/easier into the fight than a empty chamber auto. I have seen those that will carry a fully loaded revolver but carry an auto empty chamber.

Their life their choice.

Yep. A good example is the military. Often pistols are carried by folks like MP's and others condition 3, while those in the past who carried revolvers (MP's, Air Crews, Investigators, etc) carried them fully loaded.

The revolver is the answer for non-dedicated users and those not well trained in basic gun handling, especially administrative handling skills used everyday.

[UNK]

I got out of the military in 84. I know several other people who have gotten out at dates later than me. I have never heard of the military training or recommending condition three.


Many people carry condition three because of two things. Fear of a cocked gun that depends on a safety, and an inability to easily figure out a weapons condition. I will stand by my assessment that a vast majority of folks in this country carrying pistols cannot do a "safe" loaded chamber verification on their guns. This is not an issue with a revolver.


Yep. A good example is the military. Often pistols are carried by folks like MP's and others condition 3, while those in the past who carried revolvers (MP's, Air Crews, Investigators, etc) carried them fully loaded.

The revolver is the answer for non-dedicated users and those not well trained in basic gun handling, especially administrative handling skills used everyday.


Two types, from what I've seen.

1) They are scared of their guns and they believe they'll be able to see trouble coming, have both hands available, or be able to rack the gun on their belt while being jerked around in a fight the same as they can standing still on the range.

2) They were taught to do so in the military but do not understand the reason for it or the differences between what they were doing in the military and CCW.

[Dagga Boy]

Darryl (or whoever), can you expand on this? What does a revolver do that a semi-auto doesn't in this regard?


The modern revolver is carried fully loaded and is thus quicker/easier into the fight than a empty chamber auto. I have seen those that will carry a fully loaded revolver but carry an auto empty chamber.

Their life their choice.


I got out of the military in 84. I know several other people who have gotten out at dates later than me. I have never heard of the military training or recommending condition three.


Many people carry condition three because of two things. Fear of a cocked gun that depends on a safety, and an inability to easily figure out a weapons condition. I will stand by my assessment that a vast majority of folks in this country carrying pistols cannot do a "safe" loaded chamber verification on their guns. This is not an issue with a revolver.


Yep. A good example is the military. Often pistols are carried by folks like MP's and others condition 3, while those in the past who carried revolvers (MP's, Air Crews, Investigators, etc) carried them fully loaded.

The revolver is the answer for non-dedicated users and those not well trained in basic gun handling, especially administrative handling skills used everyday.

You may want to check the history of how the 1911 was carried for most of the last century outside of the top special operations units.

Also, if you look at the Glock in its home country of Austira.....outside of their top units....condition 3, the military it was designed for.

[BehindBlueI's]

I got out of the military in 84. I know several other people who have gotten out at dates later than me. I have never heard of the military training or recommending condition three.

How'd you carry administratively? Guard duty? Probably either completely empty or with an empty chamber. When I was contracting, depending on threat level, on base security carried on an empty chamber. The idea was you're turning in your weapons at the end of each shift, you're behind several layers of security, time isn't of the essence so the risk of AD outweighed it.

[BehindBlueI's]

I reviewed a video of a shooting in defense of a 3rd party where I knew the armed citizen said he carried on an empty chamber. It took right at 4 seconds to get the gun out, racked, and get a shot on target from the instant he started to move for the gun. The main reason it was successful was the offender was unaware of the samaritan's actions, being preoccupied with the victim. Just food for thought.

[idahojess]

I wish the clown who shot a woman in a movie theater in Renton, while he was apparently intoxicated and fumbling with his gun, had been carrying condition 3. Terrible injury to an innocent person, and a great headline for the media.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/01/26/man-who-feared-mass-shootings-brings-gun-to-movie-theater-accidentally-shoots-woman/

[Lomshek]

I got out of the military in 84. I know several other people who have gotten out at dates later than me. I have never heard of the military training or recommending condition three.

I believe it's called Condition Amber in the Army and is the common method of weapon readiness on bases like Bagram. Might be different for small FOB's but anywhere they expect you to wear a PT belt is a C3 area I'm told.

[JAD]

I wish the clown who shot a woman in a movie theater in Renton, while he was apparently intoxicated and fumbling with his gun, had been carrying condition 3.

Maybe he thought he was.

[Hambo]

When it comes to violence there are a lot of virgins out there. They've never had their ass kicked or kicked anybody's ass. They've never seen a dead body or a GSW. They have a sort of vague primal fear of violence happening to them and the state allows them to carry a form of protection. That's about as far as they think about it. They are by and large, good people, but they don't understand how it will all go down if it happens to them. For them to change their mindset would require that they acknowledge that it really can happen to them and they don't want to go there. IMO and IME unless you break through that, there is no point worrying about what they carry or how they carry it.

[RJ]

Sooooo...I debated posting this question, but since it probably applies to many noobs, thought I'd go ahead. I'm banking on the collective expertise here to address my concern as a new CCW carrier.

Ok, I'm relatively exposed to pistols, in particular my striker-fire VP9.

I know in a vauge sense that it has 'passive' safeties, in that the manufacturer has provided for mechanisms that prevent it from firing unless the trigger is pressed. I can see one of them on the trigger itself.

My problem is. i don't have a detailed, pictorial, 3D understanding of the internal safeties. I'm a hands-on kind of technical person; meaning I do better if I can touch and feel how something works.

Coming late to firearms, and not possessing the background or skill to dissasemble my gun to show the internals, I have to rely on the manufacter's statements that the gun is 'safe' in condition 1. Of course this is in addition to all of you, who I deeply respect, confirming based on years and years of experience that this is so.

And yet, my lizard brain still harbors a (very small) doubt. I mean, it is my life we are talking; as they say, it is the stakes, not the odds.

The concept of cocking a striker fired pistol, with the sear (its the sear, right?) being the only little piece of steel between the firing pin and the chamber gives me pause. I know there is a 'striker block' but I'm not 100% sure how that works, mechanically.

With that as background, could those of you that can, suggest how I could eliminate this concern?

Could I take my cocked pistol and put it into a tumble drier for a while and not have it go off?

Can I drop it repeatedly off a counter?

Can I sit on a kydex holstered loaded and cocked striker gun all day long?

Should I invest in a gunsmith course, and learn how my pistol really works?

Are there any good animated, slow motion, gifs or videos on how passive safety systems work?

Don't get me wrong; when I start to CCW, it will be cocked and loaded. Most likely it will be a striker fired pistol (my VP9 say). It's just in my case, from lack of knowledge, I have a teeny bit of apprehension about it. I think it will be something I can get through, so it is not like I'm going to buy a revolver or carry condition 3.

Thanks for your thoughts, I appreciate it.

[uechibear]

I know in a vauge sense that it has 'passive' safeties, in that the manufacturer has provided for mechanisms that prevent it from firing unless the trigger is pressed. I can see one of them on the trigger itself.

My problem is. i don't have a detailed, pictorial, 3D understanding of the internal safeties.

Maybe this will help: https://us.glock.com/technology/safe-action

[Beat Trash]

Rich, Long story short, your gun will not fire unless the trigger is pulled. One of the safeties is the thing on the inside of the slide. It's a bit different than what you see in a Glock or an M&P, but basically, it freezes the striker and prevents it form moving unless it is moved out of the way. This is done with the movement of the trigger.

When my agency was testing guns about 10 years ago, we were moving away from a Double Action Only hammer fired pistol (S&W 5946) to some type of striker fired pistol. One of the tests done was called the "Frisbee Test" Chamber a primed, but empty case into the barrel of the gun. Then toss the gun like a frisbee on concrete. The goal was to get the gun to hit the concrete on all possible sides of the gun. This is often referred as the striker block. I am not familiar how it works on the VP9, but I am familiar with how it works on the Glock and M&P. The guns never went off during this test. Once I saw how the striker safety plunger worked with the striker and the trigger bar to prevent this, it all made sense. I'm not sure how the VP9's system as I haven't done more to my VP9 than field strip it.

You can toss, throw and/or drop you gun as much as you like and it will not discharge because of being dropped.

Investing in a gunsmith course might be interesting form an educational point of view. But I do not think it's necessary.

Can you sit on a kydex holster with a loaded gun inside? I guess it would depend on the holster. A quality made holster, yes.

The main area for concern with a striker fired pistol in my opinion is holster less carry. For a lot of years, I had been known to slip a 1911 or a Browing Hi Power, cocked and locked in my waist band. With the safety on. same with my issued DA/SA 5906 and later my DAO 5946 pistol. I personally do not feel safe doing this with a striker fired pistol. For the same reason I would not do it with a 1911 with the gun cocked and the safety off. If I need to transport a striker fired pistol, I stick it in some type of holster so as to cover the trigger guard. An example is I use a M&P Shield as a BUG. If I am getting dressed at work, I'll toss the Shield in my back pack, but it's in an old leather pancake holster.

My main concern with all striker fired guns it to ensure that nothing gets accidentally trapped inside of the trigger guard if transporting the gun. I bought one of the original Vanguard holsters made by Raven Concealment Systems. This just covers the trigger guard. It's perfect for transporting the gun safely.

Bottom line is that I wouldn't worry about your VP9 going off unless something pulls the trigger.

[UNK]

I was a regular grunt with a brief stint in STA. 4 years worth. I never heard of that. STA wasn't secret squirrel stuff but it sure wasn't mess hall duty. I never heard of that. Ever. I can not recall ever seeing a carried 1911 that wasn't locked and cocked. The only exception I can recall would have been at a qualification range. 38's carried under a cami top in garrison were not uncommon.


You may want to check the history of how the 1911 was carried for most of the last century outside of the top special operations units.

Also, if you look at the Glock in its home country of Austira.....outside of their top units....condition 3, the military it was designed for.

[BehindBlueI's]

Sooooo...I debated posting this question, but since it probably applies to many noobs, thought I'd go ahead. I'm banking on the collective expertise here to address my concern as a new CCW carrier.

Ok, I'm relatively exposed to pistols, in particular my striker-fire VP9.

I know in a vauge sense that it has 'passive' safeties, in that the manufacturer has provided for mechanisms that prevent it from firing unless the trigger is pressed. I can see one of them on the trigger itself.

My problem is. i don't have a detailed, pictorial, 3D understanding of the internal safeties. I'm a hands-on kind of technical person; meaning I do better if I can touch and feel how something works.

Coming late to firearms, and not possessing the background or skill to dissasemble my gun to show the internals, I have to rely on the manufacter's statements that the gun is 'safe' in condition 1. Of course this is in addition to all of you, who I deeply respect, confirming based on years and years of experience that this is so.

And yet, my lizard brain still harbors a (very small) doubt. I mean, it is my life we are talking; as they say, it is the stakes, not the odds.

The concept of cocking a striker fired pistol, with the sear (its the sear, right?) being the only little piece of steel between the firing pin and the chamber gives me pause. I know there is a 'striker block' but I'm not 100% sure how that works, mechanically.

With that as background, could those of you that can, suggest how I could eliminate this concern?

Could I take my cocked pistol and put it into a tumble drier for a while and not have it go off?

Can I drop it repeatedly off a counter?

Can I sit on a kydex holstered loaded and cocked striker gun all day long?

Should I invest in a gunsmith course, and learn how my pistol really works?

Are there any good animated, slow motion, gifs or videos on how passive safety systems work?

Don't get me wrong; when I start to CCW, it will be cocked and loaded. Most likely it will be a striker fired pistol (my VP9 say). It's just in my case, from lack of knowledge, I have a teeny bit of apprehension about it. I think it will be something I can get through, so it is not like I'm going to buy a revolver or carry condition 3.

Thanks for your thoughts, I appreciate it.

Do you have that level of understanding of how your car's safety system works? Take apart your airbag or take a peak at the mounting hardware for the seat belts? Or, do you just trust history and expert opinion that they work? My suggestion is to get over it and move on. If you can't, then carry a gun with an external hammer (I hear Sig makes one...) and go from there.

[deputyG23]

The modern revolver is carried fully loaded and is thus quicker/easier into the fight than a empty chamber auto. I have seen those that will carry a fully loaded revolver but carry an auto empty chamber.

Their life their choice.

When my work began switching from revolvers to Glock 17s in the late '80s, there was at least one person found during each monthly weapons inspection who deliberately had their Glock in C3. Even though they went through the entire transition training, they were scared that because it did not have a "safety", it was unsafe. We finally got that cured.

[Dagga Boy]

I was a regular grunt with a brief stint in STA. 4 years worth. I never heard of that. STA wasn't secret squirrel stuff but it sure wasn't mess hall duty. I never heard of that. Ever. I can not recall ever seeing a carried 1911 that wasn't locked and cocked. The only exception I can recall would have been at a qualification range. 38's carried under a cami top in garrison were not uncommon.

The USMC tends to be a bit different. Their manuals indicate carry of the Beretta Condition 1. How did you carry your 1911 when not in a STA platoon? Ever spend time on an Army base or Air Force base? I saw a ton of condition three and four (especially when the soldiers were required to unload when they entered a building like a PX). Also...."red is dead" safety obsession on the Beretta was interesting.

If you want to contend that the US military carried the 1911 cocked and safety engaged as routine....okay, I guess I was wrong, and will bow out.

[PNWTO]

Also...."red is dead" safety obsession on the Beretta was interesting.

It is amazing how a little "sight black" can alleviate that when one is around the herbivores.

[psalms144.1]

The USMC tends to be a bit different. In more ways than one. But, my first real "deployment" was assigned to a USMC-commanded JTF in Haiti, and we were ordered to carry our M9s COMPLETELY empty. My teams job was 100% working outside the wire doing force protection work, dealing with the locals all day, every day, trying to stay ahead of developing threats.

Needless to say, our weapons were obviously and completely empty until we turned the corner away from the base, at which point we loaded the M9s, took them off safe, and went about our business...

And, I've seen plenty of 1911s being carried hammer down on an empty chamber, across all the services. Of course, you don't see many 1911s at all anymore, but the only NON-SOF organization that I know mandates loaded chamber, safety off with the M9 is the USAF Security Forces.

[GardoneVT]

In more ways than one. But, my first real "deployment" was assigned to a USMC-commanded JTF in Haiti, and we were ordered to carry our M9s COMPLETELY empty. My teams job was 100% working outside the wire doing force protection work, dealing with the locals all day, every day, trying to stay ahead of developing threats.

Needless to say, our weapons were obviously and completely empty until we turned the corner away from the base, at which point we loaded the M9s, took them off safe, and went about our business...

And, I've seen plenty of 1911s being carried hammer down on an empty chamber, across all the services. Of course, you don't see many 1911s at all anymore, but the only NON-SOF organization that I know mandates loaded chamber, safety off with the M9 is the USAF Security Forces.

It should be noted that what "Chain Of Command" mandates regarding weapon condition may be entirely different then what "Worker Bee Command" actually did in the field.

While I've been educated to the documented history of line 1911 users being ordered to carry C3 , I've also heard plenty of spicy stories of personnel going C1 once out of sight of the Base Gate.

[UNK]

I am not saying you are wrong. I just never heard of it. I personally never carried a 1911. I only qualified with them or dealt with them as an instructor. It wasn't part of my equipment list. I doubt the guys carrying 38.s concealed were doing it with authorization. I did a brief stint in our armory and I never saw a .38 there so where they were keeping them is anybody's guess. Maybe things were different in the early 80's.
Now that I think about it I do remember one SNCO who refused to carry one because they were too dangerous.


The USMC tends to be a bit different. Their manuals indicate carry of the Beretta Condition 1. How did you carry your 1911 when not in a STA platoon? Ever spend time on an Army base or Air Force base? I saw a ton of condition three and four (especially when the soldiers were required to unload when they entered a building like a PX). Also...."red is dead" safety obsession on the Beretta was interesting.

If you want to contend that the US military carried the 1911 cocked and safety engaged as routine....okay, I guess I was wrong, and will bow out.

[StraitR]

Do you have that level of understanding of how your car's safety system works? Take apart your airbag or take a peak at the mounting hardware for the seat belts? Or, do you just trust history and expert opinion that they work? My suggestion is to get over it and move on. If you can't, then carry a gun with an external hammer (I hear Sig makes one...) and go from there.

That's quite possibly the single worst response to a sincere request for information that I've ever read on PF. Not to mention, it's one of the nicest members on the board that's asking.

I'm hoping you're just having a bad day, in which case feel free to PM me if I can do anything to help.

[David S.]

That's quite possibly the single worst response to a sincere request for information that I've ever read on PF. Not to mention, it's one of the nicest members on the board that's asking.

I'm hoping you're just having a bad day, in which case feel free to PM me if I can do anything to help.


http://youtu.be/w7OrOk-ia4w

;)

[StraitR]

https://youtu.be/w7OrOk-ia4w

;)

haha. I'm just saying, I've had some really shitty days and let loose a few shots over the bow that were out of character for me, so I get it.

Although he can be a bit edgy at times, that's not normal bbl. ;)

[BehindBlueI's]

That's quite possibly the single worst response to a sincere request for information that I've ever read on PF. Not to mention, it's one of the nicest members on the board that's asking.

I'm hoping you're just having a bad day, in which case feel free to PM me if I can do anything to help.

I apologize if it came across as harsh. The basic message is as intended, though. Do you really know how your airbag system works and why it won't accidentally inflate in your face? Probably not. Yet you drive your car without ever thinking about it. You get in elevators, etc. etc. The problem is one of perception, that the gun is inherently more dangerous than many other things you use daily that if they were to malfunction would injure or kill you. My suggestion remains the same. Either get over and move on or move to a weapon system that you trust and move on. I would not carry a weapon system I don't trust and must carry inoperable. I would not recommend anyone else do the same due to reasons I've already laid out. I *like* the ability to put my thumb on the hammer as I holster while recognizing it isn't *necessary* in order to be safe. Hopefully the person who asks takes the answer in the light it was intended, to think about the real underlying reason, if they can get over it, or if they should look at a different weapon.

[BehindBlueI's]

https://youtu.be/w7OrOk-ia4w

;)

:D

[RJ]

Hopefully the person who asks takes the answer in the light it was intended, to think about the real underlying reason, if they can get over it, or if they should look at a different weapon.

No worries. If I got butt hurt over every opinion on the internet that offended me, I'd need a lot of diaper cream. :cool:

Received as intended.

[RJ]

Maybe this will help: https://us.glock.com/technology/safe-action

Thanks, I've been on the Glock site before, but had not seen that graphic. I had to get onto a PC to see the moving images, but yes, it really helps.

With Beat_Trash's explanation, I feel a lot better about it now.

Thanks guys (you too bbl :cool:)

[BehindBlueI's]

No worries. If I got butt hurt over every opinion on the internet that offended me, I'd need a lot of diaper cream. :cool:

Received as intended.

Thanks. As soon as I typed up the second response I thought, "Shit, now he's either going to feel better about the gun... or be freaked out about his airbag..." :D

Plus, you know I've got to throw a plug in for Sig when I can. Buy a Sig. Buy two.

[StraitR]

Thanks. As soon as I typed up the second response I thought, "Shit, now he's either going to feel better about the gun... or be freaked out about his airbag..." :D

Plus, you know I've got to throw a plug in for Sig when I can. Buy a Sig. Buy two.

I see what's going on here, an elaborate scheme of misdirection by a no good secret squirrel Takata Corp spy. ;)

[ReverendMeat]

Thanks, I've been on the Glock site before, but had not seen that graphic. I had to get onto a PC to see the moving images, but yes, it really helps.


Hey man, if you want to know more about how guns work check this out: http://store.steampowered.com/app/262410/

It's a fantastic resource IMO, and damned addictive too

[RJ]

^^^ Thanks.

I also stumbled across this, really interesting seeing a cutaway of a Glock 17:


http://youtu.be/pThsdG0FNdc