I'm not suggesting that these will catch on, but I think it is worth discussing since guns have changed since Cooper first came up with his conditions.
Condition Zero: Gun is cocked and unlocked, ready to fire as it would be mid-magazine. This applies to guns designed to be carried in some other condition.
Condition 0.5: Gun is unlocked and has a single action type trigger pull - shortish and 6 or less pounds, but was designed and intended to be carried that way. (PPQ, XD, Glock, VP9, etc.)
Condition 1: Cocked and locked or cocked and blocked (for guns with a slide safety). Requires two sequential but simple actions.
Condition 1.5: Hammer/striker/mainspring somehow partially cocked to achieve a trigger somewhere between Conditions 0.5 and 2. (Kahr, DAK, LEM V3, PX4 C, NY1, etc.)
Condition 2: Hammer or striker decocked, DA action trigger pull. DA/SA and true DAO.
Condition 2.4: Decocked and locked - safety on and hammer down, like on a Beretta 92FS. Belt and suspender approach - requires two sequential actions to fire.
Condition 2.6: Hammer decocked and SAO. This refers to carrying a single action pistol with the hammer down, where the only way to fire is to first cock the hammer with the thumb. Used to be more common, but still the designed way to carry a Beretta 950. Moved from Condition 2.
Condition 3: Chamber empty, generally requiring two hands to fire.
Condition 4: Gun empty.
The biggest problem with what I'm suggesting is that there would be some debate over what belongs in 0.5 vs 1.5. Cooper's Conditions of Readiness were primarily about how much work the marksman must do to hit the target, rather than an examination of the internal mechanism. If the trigger take up and break are most similar to a two stage single action trigger, then it probably should be in 0.5. If it has the length of a DA pull and or a weight somewhere closer to DA, than it should likely be in 1.5.
Again, not starting a revolution, just thinking about the Conditions and how they currently cause different weapons to be viewed somewhat unrealistically. They can also be viewed as a safety hierarchy, where higher numbers accurately reflect how much resistance to an ND the carrying condition affords.
Condition Zero: Gun is cocked and unlocked, ready to fire as it would be mid-magazine. This applies to guns designed to be carried in some other condition.
Condition 0.5: Gun is unlocked and has a single action type trigger pull - shortish and 6 or less pounds, but was designed and intended to be carried that way. (PPQ, XD, Glock, VP9, etc.)
Condition 1: Cocked and locked or cocked and blocked (for guns with a slide safety). Requires two sequential but simple actions.
Condition 1.5: Hammer/striker/mainspring somehow partially cocked to achieve a trigger somewhere between Conditions 0.5 and 2. (Kahr, DAK, LEM V3, PX4 C, NY1, etc.)
Condition 2: Hammer or striker decocked, DA action trigger pull. DA/SA and true DAO.
Condition 2.4: Decocked and locked - safety on and hammer down, like on a Beretta 92FS. Belt and suspender approach - requires two sequential actions to fire.
Condition 2.6: Hammer decocked and SAO. This refers to carrying a single action pistol with the hammer down, where the only way to fire is to first cock the hammer with the thumb. Used to be more common, but still the designed way to carry a Beretta 950. Moved from Condition 2.
Condition 3: Chamber empty, generally requiring two hands to fire.
Condition 4: Gun empty.
The biggest problem with what I'm suggesting is that there would be some debate over what belongs in 0.5 vs 1.5. Cooper's Conditions of Readiness were primarily about how much work the marksman must do to hit the target, rather than an examination of the internal mechanism. If the trigger take up and break are most similar to a two stage single action trigger, then it probably should be in 0.5. If it has the length of a DA pull and or a weight somewhere closer to DA, than it should likely be in 1.5.
Again, not starting a revolution, just thinking about the Conditions and how they currently cause different weapons to be viewed somewhat unrealistically. They can also be viewed as a safety hierarchy, where higher numbers accurately reflect how much resistance to an ND the carrying condition affords.