[Chindo18Z]

David Armstrong:

If chamber empty carry is such a problem and is so bad, why is it that for most of the 20th Century, when chamber empty was the most common way of carrying an autoloader in all areas (civilian, military, and LE) did we not see these problems everyone keeps bringing up?

Conversely...If 20th Century chamber empty carry were such a good idea, why are no serious combatants using it in the 21st Century?

BTW, forget the Israeli public. I'm a great admirer of the people and military of Israel, but I tried the "Israeli Military Prowess Koolaid" years ago and lost the taste. The Israelis I've worked around (military only) carried Condition "Two" (DA/SA; chambered, decocked).

Other considerations to both answer your latest question and previous comments:

1. Most people during the 20th Century carried revolvers…generally more powerful rounds and (oh yeah)…faster to employ than C3, especially prior to WWII.

2. Most folks carrying semi-autos during the 20th Century were ill trained by their organizations (which also mandated Condition 3 carry as a solution to a lack of training)

3. Very few semi-autos fielded en masse during the 20th Century had decent combat ergonomics as far as safety mechanisms were concerned (1911A1, P-35, and P-38 come to mind as exceptions)

4. For a large part of the 20th Century, Officers carried swagger sticks, troops advanced exposed and in line into beaten zones, troops walked at a measured pace into artillery fire, and almost everyone believed bayonets ruled supreme. The bladed dueling stance, flap holsters, and one-handed target pistol firing were also favored. Institutionalized stupidity is not really that admirable…things change.

5. Most folks carrying any handgun in past conflicts or law enforcement duty never used them in anger; carry condition was (ultimately) irrelevant. Barney Fife managed to do OK…but we don’t emulate him.

6. Many folks who did carry C3 failed to survive, but their comrades did and passed on the hard lesson learned – Darwinism at work; chamber empty carry went the way of swords and for some of the same reasons.

7. In the American military, C4 carry was mandated for most troops for most of the 20th Century…chamber empty, no magazine in pistol or rifle…especially while on guard duty. MPs manning gates and conducting police functions got to use C3…oh boy...yet another instance of ill-trained troops recognized as such by nervous commanders (who mandated the C3 solution that allowed them to sleep semi-soundly at night).

8. Most folks who use pistols in 21st Century combat and law enforcement DON’T use C3. Modern police departments in the US (and Western Europe) don’t use C3. My neighbors in Germany were Polizei for Baden-Wurttemberg…they didn’t use it and neither did the rest of the national police force…anywhere.

The SAS don’t today and didn’t in the mid-70’s (sorry, I’m just going to have to trust my first person observations at war, on training ranges, and operational deployments). Maybe you knew HQ folks that mandated empty carry in the office.

US Army Special Forces (my unit) do not use Condition 3. USN NSWG doesn’t. USAF AFSOF doesn’t. MARSOC does not. The 75th Infantry Regiment doesn’t. The Atlanta PD doesn’t. The Colorado Springs PD doesn’t. The WV State Police don’t. The Polish GROM doesn’t. The El Paso, Texas PD doesn’t. The German GSG-9 and KSK don’t. French GIGN doesn’t. The FBI and FBI HRT don’t. LAPD and LAPD SWAT don’t. The Kentucky State Police don’t. PSDs such as Blackwater, Triple Canopy, and Executive Outcomes don’t. ICE doesn’t. State Department PSDs don’t. The Danish Jaegers don’t. The US Air Marshalls don’t. Do you start to see a pattern?

9. US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan typically carry Condition 4 (no magazine inserted / no round in chamber) for both pistol and rifle while inside the safety of their own wire. It's mandated. During periods of heightened threat or when crossing the wire, rounds are chambered and weapons are on safe (Condition 1). Condition 3 carry? Not (at least not 5 weeks ago when I left Iraq). Are there those who carry chamber empty as an individual choice (due to lack of confidence in their weapon handling skills). Sure. But, somewhere out there I can show you a real-life Sheriff Andy Taylor not carrying anything.

10. IMHO, if a man is not comfortable with a round up the spout (assuming a modern weapon designed to safely carry such), he has a LOT more training to do before he starts referring to himself as a “pistolero”. Alternatively, he should probably consider carry of revolvers or DA/SA semi-autos. Safe Action pistols in amateur hands make me nervous. If I were in charge of a large and marginally trained organization that issued Glocks, I’d mandate C3 carry too.

11. NightHawk claims to practice extensively (dry and hot) with this technique weekly. Considering the chosen manner of carry, I certainly hope so. I commend him for that dedication to his method of carry, but question the wisdom of giving up the singular advantage (speed and simplicity of presentation) provided by carrying his chosen Glock. Draw weapon, pull trigger, bang. Instead he worries about being a danger:

“…many hundreds of times when others around me might have been placed at risk by my fully-charged pistol. (Including several other gunmen with less than perfect weapon handling skills.)”
[color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color]?! Is this a bad joke? Why should anyone be at risk from a well trained “Pistolero” due to Condition 1?

12. NightHawk and David Armstrong: While you both provide articulate written defense of your preferred technique, neither of you have ever shot and killed anyone. Nor engaged in live “CQB”. Your words speak volumes about what you don’t know (like the high likelihood that you will suffer multiple bone shattering wounds to one or both of your upper limbs). Give the tactical posturing a rest.

13. The fact that you feel comfortable with C3 (for perfectly legitimate personal reasons) does not mean that it is a superior or particularly effective way to carry. If it works for you, that’s great.

14. alizeefan: In answer to your original post and follow up questions…Yes, Condition Three carry is viable (barely, and not smart if you are going to deliberately inhabit the “x”). Lack of provided body armor is even worse. You will be guarding other peoples’ insured money…is it worth your life? Do your employers really seem to care about your training or survival. I don’t think so.

If I’ve offended anyone…tough.