Up Close: Condition 3 Carry

[Chindo18Z]

Interesting real world example of how bad things tend to happen really fast...and how pistol carry condition can matter.

A German squad conducts maintenance on one of their armored vehicles at a secure location inside their base in Afghanistan (last February)...

Taken from Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung, June 19:

Nine Seconds

Sayed Afzal killed three German soldiers while wearing the uniform of an Afghan soldier. He had lived together with them in the "OP North" outpost and they had trusted him...

Kai Wilhelm... is the only (German) soldier on the other side of the Marder (armored vehicle)... Sayed Afzal, an Afghan trooper aged nineteen, walks towards him. He carries his weapon shouldered, an American-made M16. Wilhelm notices him in his green uniform coming closer, not thinking of any harm. He could be a guard on his way to one of the overwatch positions... Wilhelm only carries his pistol as do his comrades. It is holstered in a low drag holster on his right thigh. The weapon is partially loaded which means a magazine is loaded but no bullet in the chamber. Wilhelm needs three seconds to draw, rack the slide and pull the trigger. Sayed Afzal reaches the Marder and monitors the Germans. They do not look at him and hardly notice his presence. Wilhelm sees him stepping beyond the vehicle, eyeing the soldiers. He becomes suspicious of him.

It is 11.49 AM as Sayed Afzal draws his M16. Nine seconds of murder and killing will follow. First second: The Afghan works his rifle whilst Wilhelm is drawing his pistol and screaming. He wants to warn his comrades, but it is too late already. Next second: The attacker pulls the trigger. Twelve rounds slam the side of the infantry fighting vehicle and hit the soldiers in the back. Wilhelm works the slide of his pistol. Third second: The Afghan is still pulling the trigger, firing another eight rounds until his magazine is empty. Wilhelm releases the safety switch of his pistol to "F" for fire. Fourth second: The attacker lowers his weapon to reload, triggers the magazine release and the empty magazine falls to the ground. Wilhelm makes a step around the Marder and takes aim. Fifth second: The attacker reaches back for another magazine. Wilhelm pulls the trigger, firing a shot. He does so another time, another shot is fired. Sixth second: He shoots four times, so six rounds have hit the man's torso. Each one is a hit. Seventh second: The Afghan tumbles to the ground. Eighth second: He tries to get on his feet again. Ninth second: Wilhelm fires another three rounds. Sayed Afzal, the Taliban sleeper, is not moving anymore.

The lifeless body lies ten meters away from the Marder. Wilhelm approaches him to check his death. He holsters his weapon again, there are six rounds left in the magazine. His comrades lie to the left. He pulls his radio and screams "Attack at the White House. Nine casualties..."

This brave young man performed heroically under pressure. He had to Observe, Orient, Decide, and Act (including moving to a clear line of fire) from a cold start (Condition White). It would be difficult to expect anyone to perform better than this Deutsche Soldat actually did in terms of reaction time. This scenario probably represents a best case example of going from a cold start to decisive engagement while carrying a semi-auto in Condition 3.

Five seconds until rounds in effect. The attacker inflicted all casualties during the first four seconds.

Might it have made a difference had he a round already chambered?

Just for discussion and thought...please keep it civil.

 

[toivo]

No doubt in my mind that Wilhelm would have been better off with a round chambered. Granted that this was an extreme case, but there's no reason not to be prepared for the worst, especially in a war zone.

One nitpick: Wasn't he actually carrying in Condition 3: chamber empty, hammer down? Condition 2 would be the loaded-chamber option.

 

[Chindo18Z]

toivo: Good catch. My bad. Corrected.

Although the article does not specify type of weapon, the current issue pistol for the Bundeswehr (German Military) is the P8, an H&K USP variant. This pistol is a DA/SA 9mm semi-auto.

From wikipedia.org:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P8_pistol

For refresher reference:

Condition One (for DA/SA pistol): Round chambered; safety OFF

Condition Two (for DA/SA pistol): Round chambered; safety ON

Condition Three (for DA/SA pistol): Chamber empty; loaded magazine inserted

Condition description obviously varies slightly by pistol action (Striker-fired, SA, DAO, DA/SA, etc.).

 

[Fred Fuller]

One of the few consistently outspoken voices from the professional training community that I hear rail on this subject is John Farnam. There may be others speaking out, I might just 'not be on their lists,' I don't know. But Farnam has been roaring about this loud and long, and I agree with him.

When you're your own worst enemy, you don't NEED any other enemies...

lpl
=====

http://www.defense-training.com/quips/01May11.html

We don't need enemies!

 

[Old Shooter]

It probably would have made a difference if he had a round chambered when this all began but to make a difference he would have had to engage Sayed while he still had ammo in his M16. Unless Kai was shooting from Sayeds' blind spot, Sayed wold probably have turned his attention to him right then.

That is what soldiers are trained to do and it seems Kai did the best he could in a bad situation. Sayed had the time and intentions to set up his perfect surprise ambush, hard to counter something like that.

 

[leadaddict]

According to the time line given it wouldn't have mattered. The shots from the bad guy were all firied in the first 3 seconds. Good guy didn't fire until the 5th second, two seconds 'late'. It only took one second to rack the slide, according to the article. So even if he had fired one second earlier it wouldn't have mattered. I'm sure there are times when one second would matter, but apparently not this time.

 

[Chindo18Z]

I suspect that the article was written partially to support an agenda aimed at changing readiness SOP for pistol carry (i.e., allow chambered weapons at all times).

It's a good attempt to break down a sequence of events by the second, but realistically, the measured events may be off +/- a few seconds.

Something to consider is that this actual event represents a scenario that was about as good as it might ever get for someone armed with a pistol.

The good guy was:

1. Armed
2. Accompanied by armed friends
3. Drew from a exposed and readily accessible holster
4. Recognized and Positively ID'ed the threat before the first shot was fired
5. Began his actions from behind cover (an armored fighting vehicle)

Discounting the time it took to raise his Situational Awareness from White to Red, it still took at least 5 seconds before he could effectively inject himself into the situation.

If the opponent had approached from the opposite side of the vehicle (outside his field of view), Wilhelm might have taken even longer, as he would not have immediately realized what was happening or who the shooter was.

If you look at the admittedly estimated timeline, both parties initiated action (offensive & defensive) at about the same exact time. The enemy shooter ACTED at the same time the defender began to REACT. Action beats reaction. The question is whether or not the defender would have been better served by having a pistol in a higher (quicker) state of readiness. It is doubtful that anyone could have prevented the attacker from opening fire, but the duration of his fire might have been interrupted had the defender been able to open fire three seconds earlier.

BTW: I believe that an unloaded weapon is a paperweight with potential. I've always carried condition One when on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq (M9, Glock, or M1911A1). Several successful downrange pistol engagements I'm aware of involved grappling with an opponent and only one hand being available to handle the weapon.

The average CCW'er might typically find himself/herself in far more daunting circumstances (accompanied by unarmed loved ones, unable to immediately identify the shooter, no cover, no armed friends, weapon carried in less than ideal accessibility, possibly chamber empty, possibly off balance or knocked down, startled & confused as to what is actually happening, grappling with the opponent, etc.).

Although a well practiced person can quickly draw, rack, and fire (against a timer on a flat range), the stressors of a life and death event are not present on a flat range. I think folks tend to assume ideal conditions for their hypothetical future event while failing to realize that they may not be able to execute their Condition 3 carry plan.

What if, what if, what if?

To borrow Lee Lapin's all-time classic quote: "It's not about the odds, it's about the STAKES."

 

[jeepguy]

the soldier acted admirably, unfortunately his superiors acted cowardly. i see no valid reason to carry in condition three. if i carry my 1911 or cz 75b its condition one, if i carry my p228 its loaded and decocked. this is probably the german govt. trying to be pc & putting soldiers at risk while doing it.

 

[Al Thompson]

Not just the German .gov, US policy in many units is either Condition 3 or no magazine in the weapon.

 

[MisterMike]

Not just the German .gov, US policy in many units is either Condition 3 or no magazine in the weapon.

My experience--admittedly a while ago--was magazine in the weapon, no round chambered, safety on. As things escalated, you could chamber a round and click off the safety. I don't know that anyone has done a real statistical analysis of the pros and cons, but the obvious pros are straightforward: (1) a gun without a chambered round cannot be fired accidentally; and (2) if the practice is standardized, everyone else in your unit should be able to rely on your adherance to the standard to know what condition you weapon is in (obviously, though, never an excuse for failing to personally confirm the weapon's state).

Assuming you can give credence to the second-by-second timeline in the quoted account--and I'd submit that you can't--you still have to ask the question if it would have made any difference.

My bottom line is that, while I understand the rationale behind the contrary practice, I'm not so sure that, in considering the whole range of military operations, it's a bad idea. You can always find a situation where it may prove a hindrance, but does changing the military's approach, followed over many years by literally millions of troops, really make sense?

The bigger issue, I think, is the requirement that, outside war zones, well-qualified shooters are required to disarm. The despicable Major Hasan took advantage of that at Fort Hood and we know that others will in the future. It is well known that our bases' physical defenses are constantly being probed, and anyone with an ounce of sense knows that the vulnerability of our service men and women on their military installations is an invitation to terrorists and individual nutcases.

It burns me that we fail to account for this . . . or, perhaps more accurately, that our leaders don't care.

 

[Deltaboy1984]

The US and German army needs to wake up and set the Order of the Day to all weapons at Condtion 2. Cond. 2 prevents accident shots yet still allows you to shoot quickly if needed.

It is a dangum shame those guys died over a STUPID Order concerning the Condition of their weapons.

 

[Chindo18Z]

Regarding the tendency of military organizations to enforce empty or unready guns...

Most military handgun training is rudimentary, with most folks (especially in administrative functions) getting somewhat less practical training than the average civilian who has completed a short CCW course.

Very few competent pistol trainers inhabit the thousands of units found in the Services. Training tends to focus just on the basics of operation and firing. Few pistol instructors are allowed to teach the finer points (or are even able to). Most folks assigned a pistol only fire once or twice a year (and fewer than 100 rounds of 9mm per session).

The training is akin to showing someone how to crank up a lawnmower: "Here's the mower; this is the pull cord; here's the stop lever; here's where the gas goes; wear shoes & be careful; there's the yard...have at it."

Ultimately, leadership realizes that because of poor training, annual aggregate losses due to NDs are likely to be significantly higher than the number of enemy ever killed with a pistol. Thus, they would rather "Be Safe" than "Be Ready".

Another problem is that policy making leadership are usually cats who... 1) don't view pistols as anything other than a means to check the block for being conveniently armed and... 2) are not themselves well versed in small arms procedures or employment (i.e., not gunnies).

Sad but true.

On the other hand, there is a current shift from Condition 3 carry to Condition 2 or 1 among many units and organizations. A lot of meat-eating outfits have already tossed the old rules, implemented better training, and gotten their folks properly prepared for Murphy.

Time will tell, but the wartime changes may stick and become institutionalized for the entire force.

My own take on Wilhelm's action is that Condition 1 carry might have disrupted the Taliban shooter's attack. On the other hand, Kai Wilhelm might have required the same amount of time, even if he already had a charged pistol in hand when the enemy shooter appeared.

IMHO, since pistols are last ditch reactive weaponry, it makes little sense to impose an artificial handicap to their rapid use. You might have plenty of time or ability to load. Then again, you might not.

 

[jeepguy]

mister mike didn't the military go away from condition 1 in their side arms? assuming from ww1 through vietnam they used condition 1. i don't believe you can carry a 1911 like this since the safty can't be activated unless their is a round in the chamber. so my guess is this change must have come about sometime after the transition to the beretta 92. so millions of troops probably used condition 1 over the years before the military switched to condition 3. as far as troops not getting much trigger time on sidearms, i can understand for troops that aren't in harms way. but these were troops sent into a war zone, they should have been given more training or range time if needed at least imo. im not trying to start a fight but everything i have read or any advice i have been given on this topic is to carry cocked & locked, decocked with a sa/da, or just one in the chamber with a striker fired side arm.

 

[Deltaboy1984]

I believe the 92 brought about this idiotic change and it needs to be changed back. Add a week to boot camp if needed but teach them what many of us here already know.

 

[SentinelStrategic]

Not just the German .gov, US policy in many units is either Condition 3 or no magazine in the weapon.

When I was in the Sandbox, no one was allowed to have a loaded weapon on any of the major bases. Not even in Condition 3. It's Condition 4 only. Being an MP, we always carried Condition 3 everywhere we went on post. Mainly because most of us senior NCOs were cops in the real world, including our CO and 1SG, and we knew we could get away with it and nobody could tell us different. There was always a loaded magazine in the well for us. Only the small outposts and bases where they had a lot of attacks were troops allowed/required to carry loaded weapons, and even then it was mostly Condition 3. It wasn't uncommon for us to roll through a gate and see some goofball REMF clearing a weapon have an ND, so it probably wasn't the worst thing in the world to require an empty chamber.

Even doing on-post LE work CONUS, it was Condition 3 for us. I always thought it was stupid. The Army considered racking a round to be a "show of force" with our UoF Continuum.

With that said, this story is a good indication of the time it takes to manipulate a weapon, but I don't think it translates very accurately over to concealed carry. If you see a guy walking toward you in the parking lot of car dealership or mall with an M16, chances are you're going for cover and your weapon preemptively. Or running like hell behind cover.
There is a difference between carrying a certain way because you choose too, and carrying a certain way because you have to. When we did our pistol training in the Army, we practiced and qualified with loaded chambers. Considering that we spent a lot of time carrying empty chambers, this was probably a major failing on our part.

 

[Deaf Smith]

Several advantages for chamber carry plus a few disadvantages.

1) Simplicity. No need to add another step to get the weapon in action.

2) Immediate first shot in the shortest time period, especially from retention position (that is grabbing distance.)

3) No need for two hands to chamber. You may have one hand hurt or busy and not be able to use two hands. Grappling with an attacker also makes chambering with two hands rather tough. Opponent may slam you to the ground, or grab the weapon, or just punch you while you try to chamber a round.

4) When under pressure you might short stroke the action and jam the weapon (wither one handed or two handed chambering.) It's just easy under pressure to not work the action fully. People with pump shotguns know this well.


The downside is that if you forget the gun is loaded you can pull the trigger and have a AD/ND (but then, just KYFFOTFT till the weapon is on target.) Yes there are AD/NDs every year. No doubt many have their weapons chamber loaded, but then many are ‘cleaning’ their weapons and well, who knows what state their weapons was really in.

Now chamber empty (C3) has a few advantages.

1) A gun snatch will give you a few seconds for the BG to react (you hope) to get the weapon back.

2) If you have kids, and the slide is hard to rack, it's less chancy of they get the gun somehow (but then I feel you should just pick the gun up, ok.)

3) If your gun is not drop safe, then chamber empty is the best way to carry.

4) No safe way to carry the weapon (lack of holster, poor holster, etc..)

5) If you tend to take your gun out and play with it instead of keeping it holstered then C3 might be a better way to carry. (not kidding, there are people that do mess with their weapons like that.)

Overall, chamber empty is an inferior technique for most people. There are some where it serves a purpose like having the weapon hidden around the house and you have time to chamber a round, but for most, chamber loaded is the better technique for a defensive handgun.

Now why is it inferior? Because of the extra steps one has to take that mostly require two hands under very stressful conditions. Kind of like the technique of fanning a SA revolver.

Is chamber empty safer to carry? Not if you keep the weapon in a proper holster that covers the trigger guard and has adequate retention (in case of a fall or such) and don/doff with the weapon in the holster. That way the trigger cannot be pulled in any way.

Deaf