GunDoctor Comment

[Pat-inCO]

When you say that someone might "adapt and overcome" though, doesn't that already imply a handicap for unchambered carry?

Possibly, but I am working with one of the "what ifs" on a daily basis. Unlike you I am missing three fingers on my right hand AND the thumb and index finger are off at the first joint. For six decades I have been working with one of the horrible "what-ifs", every single day. A comparable what if to me is what if - you - were shot through both hands, what then?     Does it REALLY make a difference, in that scenario, what mode you were carrying in? It does to me because it means the BG can not just pick up my gun and shoot me with it. He must know how to operate the controls to make it go bang. It gives me a few seconds to try and place a good kick where it will do the most to impede his progress.

That - is the problem with "what ifs". What is your frame of reference. How do you define your piece of the world. Yours is different than mine, thus I say tell me something without your personal "what-if" prejudices, should you wish to convince me.   

[tire iron]

I realize I am a week late to the party - but - better late than never, right?   I think one of the underlying problems that contribute to the "condition 3" carry is the HUGE disconnect between the "hunting/shooting sports" and the idea of "fighting with a firearm".

If one grows up in the gun culture - one is typically taught "shooting sport/hunting" habits.  You know - gun is unloaded until one gets to the range - and it only loaded when actually on the line ready to shoot. Or unloaded till one gets into the field, and even then leaving the action open or in condition 3 until game is spotted.

If one doesn't come from a firearms background - then they either get thier firearms habits from the military - or the media.

Regarding the military - I was SHOCKED when I first joined the USMC to see how ultra-safety conscious the regular USMC was.  (Luckily I was able to get in a more "special" unit and was greeted with more "sane" firearm habits, like carrying condition 2 (M9) or condition 1 (M1911 and M4)).

Without military experience - one is left with the media, schools, etc and their near paranoid stance towards firearms - and you have a recipe for encouraging condition 3 carry.

I also know that some carry condition 3 because they really haven't come to grips with shooting another human being. Carrying in condition 3 allows them to try and have it "both ways". Armed to protect oneself - but still not a threat to anyone (not even the bad guy). 

The guys/gals that fit into the "sport shooting/hunting" mentality that carry condition 3 can be helped with coaching/training/teaching and make fine CCW'ers.  Those from the military and non-gun cultures can be taught the proper way to CCW and how to fight with a firearm.  Those that fit into the last category (haven't really come to grips with shooting another human) should NOT carry a gun until they do come to grips with shooting someone.  They then can be taught how to fight with a firearm.

Those of us that have "made that choice" ought to do what we can to help ALL gun owners understand the "fighting" aspect of firearms ownership.  That is the whole purpose the founding fathers defined the 2nd Amendment.  It wasn't for sport shooting or hunting - it was for FIGHTING with a firearm to protect LIFE and LIBERTY.

As we educate others and teach them about the right and responsibility to protect LIFE and LIBERTY by taking the life of someone who would deprive us of such (when the bad guy gives us no other option) - we will have converted a condition 3 carrier to carrying with one up the spout.

Those are my thougths anyway.  That and $1.00 will get you any one item from a value menu.

cheers

tire iron

[Gundoctor]

Great comments, tire iron. Thanks for posting and Semper Fi.

[sohmdaddy]

I for one think that carrying something like a Sig or Beretta with the safety off and one in the chamber is a good balance. There is no way to accidentally pull a 'hair trigger', but with enough practice the double action pull is just as smooth and steady as a single action. (Well maybe not, but smooth enough to put the round where you want it to go.)

[Bo Smith]

Why does it have to have a long, eight pound-plus trigger pull to be safe? Why not one of the trigger-cockers with a shorter, lighter trigger?

[sohmdaddy]

I guess personal preference is why.

[Pat-inCO]

  I also know that some carry condition 3 because they really haven't come to grips with shooting another human being. Carrying in condition 3 allows them to try and have it "both ways". Armed to protect oneself - but still not a threat to anyone (not even the bad guy). 

Humm, using that logic it seems the entire Israeli army is in error. I always thought they were "in the thick of things" and needed to be as ready as reasonable.   

If your training involves the draw from holster/cover, work the action then engage target, why would that extra half second be a problem? I don't understand the "but still not a threat to anyone (not even the bad guy)".



With about a half million people having a CC permit/license in the Untied States (over 90,000 in Colorado alone so it could approach one million with permit), how many needed condition 1 in the last year? Compare that percentage to the number that did not even "need" their gun. - - - - From what I see, you are looking at the 1 in 50,000 (with CC) or 4,000 in over 200,000,000 (overall population) and that is a small enough probability that I am willing to take the risk.   

[JKimball]

I have to agree with Pat.  The guy at the range who took the noob's gun and put it in the case was over reacting and seems to be motivated by macho bravado, rather than any desire to educate the guy.

I readily acknowledge that carrying chambered makes more sense, but I disagree that carrying unchambered is worse than not carrying.

And that attitude coming from a marine seems a little hypocritical if the stories I've heard about the military not allowing their people to carry chambered are true.  I even heard a story just the other day about some units where the ND's were getting so common that they actually put a little wire on the pistols that would have to be broken in order to chamber a round.  Anybody else ever heard anything like that?

[Bo Smith]

It's not hypocritical coming from Mr. Farnam. He has always advocated carrying chambered, regardless of rule or policy. He's even written of military men carrying concealed in uniform, in direct contravention of orders. Whether you agree with it or not, that's his personality.

[SuperNaut]

Jeez, the Con1 evangelists are in the neighborhood.

The concern about "it going off" is legit in certain circumstances, and calling that concern ignorant is not warranted.   For example I often carry my 1911 in a Maxpedition Remora when hiking.  There's a bunch of other stuff in there and the safety and trigger are getting bumped constantly.  Con2 keeps one in the pipe and nothing in my pack is going to cause the gun to fire.  I'll carry my firearm in whatever condition I think is best thank you very much.  

Maybe there are different conditions for different conditions?

[sohmdaddy]

Maybe there are different conditions for different conditions?

Whoa, that just blew my mind, man.

[JesseL]

The concern about "it going off" is legit in certain circumstances, and calling that concern ignorant is not warranted.   For example I often carry my 1911 in a Maxpedition Remora when hiking.  There's a bunch of other stuff in there and the safety and trigger are getting bumped constantly.  Con2 keeps one in the pipe and nothing in my pack is going to cause the gun to fire.  I'll carry my firearm in whatever condition I think is best thank you very much.

How are you putting your 1911 in condition 2?

Why not keep the pistol in a holster in the bag?

[SuperNaut]

How are you putting your 1911 in condition 2?

Pinch and hold hammer, drop hammer.

Why not keep the pistol in a holster in the bag?

The bag is a holster.  Is Con1 so important that I need to buy another holster to put in a holster just so I can carry in Con1?  Or is it okay to carry Con2 and just not worry about it? 

[JesseL]

Do whatever you like, but be informed about what you do.

I just want to see people making their choices on how they carry based on a thorough understanding of their gun's mechanisms, careful thought about why they carry a gun and the circumstances that might require them to use it, and awareness and understanding of safe gun handling procedures.

I don't want to see people deciding what is and isn't safe based on what they've seen in movies - which is what I think is happening with most of the people who want to carry in condition 3.

I've seen way too many people who are freaked out by a properly holstered 1911 in condition 1, but wouldn't understand the problem with carrying a SAA with the hammer down on a loaded chamber - or who would feel it necessary to keep an empty chamber under the hammer of a modern double action revolver. People who think that dropping a modern pistol might make it fire - and would try to catch it. People who think you can make a pistol safe by just ejecting the magazine.

[SuperNaut]

I can't argue with a single word there Jesse!

[schapm]

I think that's stating it a bit too strongly.  Like Outbreak, when I started carrying, I went condition 3.  At that time I had 20 years of shooting and gun handling experience and even some military experience.  FWIW Condition 1 went against EVERYTHING I had been taught from childhood gun safety and what the military trained us as well.  It's a big leap for someone starting out.
Well, if you've been taught/trained to keep guns unloaded all your life, then that's a reason you might carry a gun that way.  As I learned more and got additional training, i quickly shifted to carrying with one in the pipe.  But it took awhile.  And I think I was still much better protected carrying in Condition 3 than if I had not had a gun with me at all.  Yes condition 1 is better than 3, provided one observes safe gun handling rules and has proper holster and equipment.  But condition 1 being better doesn't make condition 3 worthless.  I'd rather CCW in condition 3 in Florida than be in Wisconsin or Illinois and not be able to carry at all!

Fixed it for you. Retarded though California's laws may be, you can still carry, which is better than Wisconsin and Illinois.

[tire iron]

Humm, using that logic it seems the entire Israeli army is in error. I always thought they were "in the thick of things" and needed to be as ready as reasonable.

It would be a mistake for us to adapt almost anything *any* military does, even the Israeli military.  The U.S. nor the Israeli military trains to prevent violent crimes.  They train to be successful in battle.  Those two scenarios are not congruent even though they may both may end in gunfire.

And - regarding the Israeli military - their manual of arms comes from decades ago when they were mostly armed with the Browning High Power.  The thumb safety on the military style BHP was too small to be activated quickly/effectively/efficiently.  One couldn't draw and 'swipe' off the safety while getting on target like one can with modern BHP's/1911's/CZ75's/etc.  It was also UNsafe to carry the BHP in condition 2 - so they developed the condition 3 - and work the slide while drawing manual of arms.  The reason they still do that (even though there are lots of Glocks and more modern designs that can easily be carried in condition 1) is for continuity/force of habit/too much training to change.

If your training involves the draw from holster/cover, work the action then engage target, why would that extra half second be a problem? I don't understand the "but still not a threat to anyone (not even the bad guy)".

No offense intended - but it sounds like you are training for the "best case scenario".  That being you are totally uninjured - there is cover available - and you have both hands free.  The only way you can be a threat if you ARE injured, or there is NO cover available and you only have ONE free hand/arm - is to carry in condition 1.

With about a half million people having a CC permit/license in the Untied States (over 90,000 in Colorado alone so it could approach one million with permit), how many needed condition 1 in the last year? Compare that percentage to the number that did not even "need" their gun. - - - - From what I see, you are looking at the 1 in 50,000 (with CC) or 4,000 in over 200,000,000 (overall population) and that is a small enough probability that I am willing to take the risk.

Reminds me of a story where an old man saw a boy throwing starfish back into the sea after a big storm.  The old man looked up and down the beach and saw MILLIONS of starfish laying on the sand.  The sun was rising and would soon kill the starfish.  The old man told the boy "you are wasting your time - you couldn't never even get close to throwing enough starfish back into the sea to even make a difference."  The boy - undetered - picked up a starfish and threw it back and said "made a difference to that one".

In other words - it doesn't matter to me if there were 350 million CCWer's  in the U.S.   "Murphy" will probably make sure that when I am involved in a civilian armed encounter - that for whatever reason - I *won't* have two hands available.  The Bad Guy almost always gets the first shot - because by nature they are offensive - and we as law abiding citizens are primarily defensive in nature.  What if the first shot takes out one of my arms?  What will I do if I am carrying condition 3??  Do I get to say "no fair - statistics show that I am supposed to have both hands/arms free so I can bring my gun into the fight"??  Of course I won't have that option.

I other words - I don't train for the statistical BEST case scenario - I train for one of the worst case scenarios.  Then if "my encounter" happens to go "the best" route - I have lost nothing.  But if "my encounter" doesn't follow the *norm* - I am still good to go, because I have trained for it.

And that attitude coming from a marine seems a little hypocritical if the stories I've heard about the military not allowing their people to carry chambered are true.

Are you referring to me?  If so - I don't find my attitude hypocritical at all - I freely admit as a former Marine that the US Marine Corps does NOT have a lock on the best way to do things.  In fact - the Marine Corps does a LOT of stupid things.  The reason the US Marines carry in condition 3 a lot is primarily because the Marine Corps is unwilling to conduct the training that would be necessary to carry condition 1.  Also - the Marines don't train to fight crime.  They train to win battles.  So the thinking is 'don't give the troops ammo until we are on the battlefield.'  We as civilians don't have the luxory of knowing "when we are on the battlefield" - we must be ready to go at all times.

The concern about "it going off" is legit in certain circumstances, and calling that concern ignorant is not warranted.

I think the root of the concern *is* ignorance.  Ignorance of how the mechanics of the handgun work, or ignorance of the potential consequences of condition 2 or 3 carry.

   For example I often carry my 1911 in a Maxpedition Remora when hiking.  There's a bunch of other stuff in there and the safety and trigger are getting bumped constantly.  Con2 keeps one in the pipe and nothing in my pack is going to cause the gun to fire.   

I would not carry a gun in ANY condition in a "purse" if the handgun was in there with a bunch of other stuff.  Isn't there a "specific pocket" for the handgun and nothing else?  Why don't you carry your handgun by itself in that special pocket? (I call it a purse because it is what it is - my purse is just a different color than my wife's - so I don't use the word "purse" in a disparaging or denigrating way.)

   I'll carry my firearm in whatever condition I think is best thank you very much.

(bold added by tire iron)

You are right - it would be WRONG for anyone to TELL you what condition to carry.  However - it would be equally wrong to allow someone to make a decision of this importance without exploring it somewhat.  So what I would ask would be - "best" for what??  Best for surviving an armed encounter with one of your arms/hands being damaged??  If this is your criteria - I would agree that would be the best way to carry - a method that gives you EVERY advantage as is possible/practical.  "Best" meaning that you are herding others with your free hand while do ALL the manual of arms with your other hand - then I would agree 100% - that is BEST.  However - if someone's idea of "best" only works under the most optimum scenario possible - I would opine that would be an ignorant mistake that could be solved through improving one's skills and mindset through training.

What if you thumb slips trying to cock your 1911?  It will drop to half-cock - which won't fire the gun either.  Can you garauntee that you can cock your 1911 to full cock EVERY time - when under extreme stress while someone is shooting at you?  Maybe you can - I can't.

   Maybe there are different conditions for different conditions?

I agree that different PHYSICAL conditions of carry equate to different MINDSET conditions of the person carrying.

Example:
Condition Three is for people that train for the BEST possible scenario. (Both hands/arms ALWAYS are available).
Condition Two is for people that train for the AVERAGE scenario.  (Have the extra time but more importantly the dexterity to cock the hammer on a 1911 under extremely high stress situations and very compressed time frames.)
Condition One is for people that train for nearly ALL scenarios.


Hope I didn't offend anyone and I hope this helps,

cheers

tire iron

[JKimball]

Are you referring to me?  If so - I don't find my attitude hypocritical at all - I freely admit as a former Marine that the US Marine Corps does NOT have a lock on the best way to do things.  In fact - the Marine Corps does a LOT of stupid things.  The reason the US Marines carry in condition 3 a lot is primarily because the Marine Corps is unwilling to conduct the training that would be necessary to carry condition 1.  Also - the Marines don't train to fight crime.  They train to win battles.  So the thinking is 'don't give the troops ammo until we are on the battlefield.'  We as civilians don't have the luxory of knowing "when we are on the battlefield" - we must be ready to go at all times.

Tire iron, I wasn't referring to you.  I had this impression of Farnham touting his credentials as a big bad marine talking about how stupid someone is for carrying in condition 3.  But if he really is telling the Marines to put their guns away and stay out of war until they get some professional training, then he isn't being hypocritical at all.  Maybe just a little full of himself. 

So lets say he always carried his M-9 with a round in the chamber.  Did he leave the decock/safety lever down in the safe position like the military requires?  I know people that would call that stupid as everyone knows that double action trigger pull is all the safety you need for that gun.  Everyone has their reasons for doing what they do.  Sometimes it is stupid, but sometimes there is a valid reason we may not see or agree with.

[tire iron]

JKimball,

Everyone has their reasons for doing what they do.  Sometimes it is stupid, but sometimes there is a valid reason we may not see or agree with.

Agreed 100%.

cheers

tire iron

[Storyteller]

Tire iron, I wasn't referring to you.  I had this impression of Farnham touting his credentials as a big bad marine talking about how stupid someone is for carrying in condition 3.  Maybe just a little full of himself. 

Sir, I will take offense to your discription of John. His training and instruction credentials are  above reproach as is his sense of honor and duty. Because you do not agree with a man's stance, and believe me John Farnham is a man, does not give you license to attack him, only isssue your opinion of his opinion.

[JKimball]

No offense meant, but you're certainly welcome to take it.  I'm not trying to attack John Farnham.  I obviously don't know much about him.  FWIW I think I'm a little full of myself too.  Wasn't meant to be a big insult.