PDA

View Full Version : Video: Israeli Army Draw; alternative to cock&lock


gvf
December 21, 2006, 04:58 AM
I ran across a reference once to an Israeli Army Draw - they carry 1911 Autos and HiPowers with empty chamber, then go thru some drilled training-process of pulling the slide back with the weak hand while the shooting hand and arm pushes the gun foward.
Sounded confusing but I found in Defense Review an article on a pistol which used video of their training - Israeli training - as part of an advert for the pistol company's own weapon. The pistol wasn't the point of the article, the video was. If interested, here is the article on that gun and a link to the video. I'm not saying this is as effective as C&L, just the first time I've seen a practiced alternative:
------------------------------------------------------

Exclusive: Kareen MKII 9mm Pistol Video Featuring Israeli Gunfighting Tactics
Posted on Monday, May 03 @ 08:57:19 PDT by davidc

Pistols by David Crane
david@defensereview.com

The download link for the Kareen MKII Pistol Promotional/Sales Video is located at the very bottom of this story. You'll have to click on "Read More" hypertext (below) to get to it.

Here's another oldie-but-goldie. It was thought to have been lost, but DefRev just uncovered it. It's the Kareen MK II 9mm pistol promotional/sales video(s). It actually appears to be two separate promotional/sales videos strung together. The video(s) was/were shot (we believe) sometime in the early-to-mid-1990's (unconfirmed). J.O. Arms was the importer/distributor for the Kareen MKII pistol, a Browning Hi-Power clone, which was manufactured by KSN Industries in Israel.

What's special about the Kareen MKII pistol video is that it features agressive Israeli shooting/gunfighting tactics and techniques, including shooting from moving vehicles, fast multiple-target engagements, and building/structure assaults. It also shows the Israeli method/technique of drawing, chambering, and firing (pistol). It's possible that the Israeli gentleman doing all the running and shooting in the video is...an ex-IDF (Israeli Defense Forces) Special Forces operator, although we haven't confirmed this, yet.

We should note that the beginning of the video has some minor damage (it's an old video) towards the beginning, but this clears up as the video progresses. We're not sure what caused this damage, but it may have been due to moisture, or a combination of moisture and sunlight. Miami gets pretty hot and humid. The video is still entertaining to watch.

Recommendation: DefRev recommends that you actually download the video and view it on your own system, rather than trying to launch/view it off the web. This is because it's a rather large file. An added benefit of downloading it to your computer and viewing it that way is that you will then have your very own copy of it. Since the video is in Quicktime format, you will need to have QuickTime on your system to view it. If you don't already have QuickTime, you can download the program here:
http://www.apple.com/quicktime/download/mac.html

Very Important Instructions for Downloading and Playing the Video: If you’d like to download and view the Kareen MKII Promotional/Sales Video, please follow these simple steps, to the letter : 1) Right-click on the link (below) to the video. 2) Left-click on "Save Target As..." inside the box that pops open, which will start the download process and save the video to your computer. DefRev recommends that you save the video either to your "Desktop" or "My Videos" file. 3) Once download is complete and the video file is sitting on your system, either left-click on the "Open" button in the download window or close that window and double click on the file itself to launch it.

Right-Click here to download the Kareen MKII Pistol Video.

http://defensereview.com/1_31_2004/kareen.mov
------------------------------------------------------------
MY POSTERS NOTE: I JUST CLICKED ON THE LINK AND DIDN'T DOWNLOAD.
IT WORKED FINE ON MY MAC FROM THE WEB. YOU
WOULD NEED QUICKTIME THOUGH JUST TO VIEW IT, BUT
THE PROGRAM IS GREAT ANYWAY, IS FREE AND I THINK A
FAIRLY QUICK DOWNLOAD AND THERE IS A WINDOWS
VERSION ON THAT FIRST LINK.

mete
December 21, 2006, 07:12 AM
Carrying an unloaded gun is ridiculous. If you can't deal with cocked and locked perhaps you shouldn't carry one !!:rolleyes:

gvf
December 21, 2006, 07:30 AM
Yes, well I don't carry one since I don't yet have my permit arrived. I was showing anyone who wanted to see it an intersesting video I found, I don't have an agenda I'm going to war over. I don't care how anyone shoots whatever they own - if it's going to be this sort of thing I'd just as soon ask to withdraw the thread. I think it best it be closed.

buzz_knox
December 21, 2006, 08:13 AM
Your post isn't the issue. The others where the Israeli draw versus carrying a live weapon were the issue. I think those have left some ill feelings in some, and some unfortunate anticipation of future flame.

mvpel
December 21, 2006, 09:04 AM
I recall a story where an Israeli got shot in his left hand by a terrorist attacker, and had to load his pistol using his boot or some such.

Mr. James
December 21, 2006, 10:10 AM
An LEO friend of mine likes to demonstrate clearing his H&K P7 using his boot. He was taught that for just such a case: a disabled left hand or arm. By the grace of God, he's never had to utilize that particular skill under fire.

Slugthrower
December 21, 2006, 10:28 AM
Using your boot to load a semi-automatic pistol is easily done. You take the pistol in the hand that is uninjured , catch the front of the rear sight on the edge of the boots heel, push the pistol forward briskly. The slide will retract and strip a live round, be very careful to keep your finger out of the trigger-guard. This can also be done with a nice ridged belt. Using the belt method is pretty dangerous and great care must be taken to use it safely. There are many ways to charge a semi-automatic pistol. Using the rear sight on any right angle that has sufficient strength to grab the edge of the rear sight will due in an emergency.

Note: Your pistol needs to have a rear sight that is at a right angle to the slide. The front of the sight only needs to have a fraction of an inch of vertical face to catch. Some pistol sights are contoured for CCW and may not be able to do this.

If there is a will, there is a way.

mete
December 21, 2006, 11:36 AM
No flame intended.Some of these proceedures are put in place by some official who doesn't know anything about it. The reality of it is that carrying an empty chamber requires TIME .If you need the gun you won't have any extra time .

Samurai
December 21, 2006, 11:37 AM
gvf,

What you've just shown us is a prime example of the difference between "military" technique and "personal defense" technique.

In the military, you want three basic things from your weapons: 1. You want them to be portable, and you want them to be SAFE when portable. You want to be able to run, jump, duck, and belly crawl with them, without worrying about fragging the guy behind you, in front of you, or worst of all, yourself. 2. You want them to be available to shoot an enemy at range, i.e. when you see them on the battlefield. You DON'T want to wait for them to get close to you before you shoot. 3. You want to be able to get to your weapon as quickly as possible, while maintaining the other two priorities.

In personal defense, your primary concerns are: 1. You want to be able to get your weapon up and working QUICKLY. 2. You want to be able to get your weapon up and working with as few appendages as possible. 3. You want your weapon to work at CLOSE range. The closer you are to your weapon, the more desperately you need it to work!

So, carrying unchambered is a GREAT idea for the military, because it makes the gun more safe when you're moving around. But, go back and look at the video again. Notice all the superfluous movement necessary to draw, rack, and shoot. Notice the way the guy has to stick his right elbow out while he racks his weapon. In self defense, this is BAD!

In self defense, you want to be able to use your weapon WHILE you're being tackled to the ground. You want to be able to use your left arm to push a guy back WHILE you draw and fire with your right hand. On the offchance that you have to do this while you're actually rolling on the ground, you certainly do NOT want to have to stick your elbows out to rack the gun!

The ancient samurai stressed that the secret to personal defense was to minimize superfluous movement. Any extra movement that you make that is not necessary to completing your attack is wasted energy. Wasted energy will get you killed.

Keep this in mind...

OBIWAN
December 21, 2006, 01:17 PM
The original technique came about as a result of the Israeli's using a hodgepodge of weapons with differing operating systems and poor mechanics

Red Grant
December 22, 2006, 02:04 AM
To gvf,


Please take no offense from some of the more zealous proponents of "If you cannot carry in condition one, then you have no business carrying one."



It's a lot more intuitive, and safer to carry a SA semi-auto in condition 3 for those who are not into guns, but still have a legitimate need for it.

_________________________________________________________________


Excellent post, Slugthrower, I couldn't have said it better myself.



_________________________________________________________________

OBIWAN,


I thoroughly agree with your assessment.


One thing that I want to add to your observation is that the reason why Israeli want to go through all that horizontal movement was to build enough momentum to reliably chamber the weapon for those with less than average upper body strength.






I think it's important for us to examine techniques per se critically, not simply blindly accept them just because "Somebody said so!" or "It's from some country!"



......anymore than the notion that "we should buy weapons just because it's from "some country!"

Alex_L
December 22, 2006, 07:04 PM
Sorry to disappoint you, but it was a long time ago. All this stuff relates to B.G (before Glock) era :)

BreacherUp!
December 22, 2006, 07:27 PM
So, carrying unchambered is a GREAT idea for the military, because it makes the gun more safe when you're moving around
Not sure where you are getting your info from. Every mil unit outside the wire is in condition 1. If you can't be trusted to walk, crawl, jump, crap with your condn 1 weapon, you're in the wrong line of work. Period.

Doug.38PR
December 22, 2006, 07:46 PM
I carry my SA 1911 A1 .45 and Sig P226 9mm like this. The only difference is, both hands go for the gun at the same time at 3 o clock. Right hand grabs the grip (of course) and draws while the left hand is on the slide and the left hand pulls the slide back just after gun clears the holster and is moving forward into shooting position. The left hand ends up covering my chest and gun hand is pointed forward. You don't lose time drawing the slide back this way as they do and your gun is drawn about as quick as it would be ready to go from the holster. (Unless you are in a car as one of those men in the video was then you couldn't very well draw in this way)

Slugthrower
December 22, 2006, 08:20 PM
Doug.38PR. Using that method maybe very quick from condition 3 for aimed shooting. If a person needs to draw from concealment the distance will most likely be at contact distance. You will need your off hand to fend them off. Point shooting will play a major role in swiftness to action. Don't fool yourself with that 21 ft rule. You will not have time for that carry method.

Most SD shootings are 12 feet or less. I am not saying that it won't work , you will have to practice alot and often to remain proficient. It is much more simple to have the pistol in condition 1. If if takes an average man 2 secs or less at 21 feet to make contact. How long do you have at 12 feet or less?

Doug.38PR
December 22, 2006, 09:24 PM
slugthrower,
I don't just practice this with aiming but also in point shooting as well almost from the hip. Nevertheless, it does leave my left arm occupied while it could be fending off as you said.
Some say "SD isn't going to be a fast draw thing" but I disagree with that because the element of surprise is not going to be on your side half the time (this is why I am not a big fan of ankle holsters :eek: .
Such is the case, for me, it makes the semi auto too complicated a weapon which is why I stick to carrying a revolver 75% of the time. However, I do carry a semi auto sometimes just to stay familiar and comfortable with them.
I am not as big a fan of carrying with one in the chamber as I used to be. Old school advise has taught me otherwise. I've learned to heed it.

orionengnr
December 22, 2006, 10:03 PM
Is there no end to these threads? I have been restaining myself for quite some time, but at this point...

If you want to place yourself at a tactical disadvantage (intentionally and with pre-meditation), why not follow the logic tree and:

a. Carry Condition Three
b. No, better yet, carry Condition Zero (no mag in pistol)
c. While we're at it, leave the mag at home...
d. ...locked up, in the safe
e. Naw, make it at the bank, in the safe-deposit box (bad-a$$ ninja you are)
f. Now walk around with a blindfold and your seeing-eye chihuahua
g. ...and a sign around your neck that says "Blind, stupid and disarmed--rob/beat/kill me, please!)

Are you "safer" now?
And you want a CCW....why? :rolleyes:

Are you an LEO/SWAT? Are you military SF? Israeli Mossad? Highly trained, razor sharp reflexes? Practice every day? Situational awareness finely honed?

Or are you just one of us, a regular guy with a CCW and a modicum of SA?

The deck is stacked against you. Party (or parties) unknown will not announce their presence or their intentions...and wait politely for you to react, present, and rack.

You will be behind the power curve when it happens.

Want to place yourself farther in the hole? Your call.

Not a wise one, IMHO, but the choice is all yours...and you will live (or die) with the results.

Doug.38PR
December 22, 2006, 10:39 PM
.......oookay

orionengnr
December 22, 2006, 11:04 PM
.......oookay

Great.

Well reasoned, well stated, well presented reply. :rolleyes:

I can see you gave your all to that post...care to try again?

billydiesel
December 23, 2006, 04:46 AM
Guys, this is pretty stupid, GSF was only trying to show us what some countries are practicing. HE WAS NOT SUGGESTING WE CARRY THAT WAY!!

This was a thread that he thought we might find interesting so he posted it and now it becomes an argument on how to carry. Why?

I actually found the thread very interesting. And actually these guys were pretty good at their method though I would not carry that way. But it was only to show us that some people have different tactics than us. NOT THAT WE SHOULD CARRY THAT WAY!

By the way, thanks GSF, I found it to be quite interesting.

rkba_net
December 23, 2006, 05:02 AM
I am also sick of the arguments in FAVOR of condition 3 carry... to me it is a matter of common sense... the advantages of condition 3 carry DO NOT outway the advantages of condition one carry... IMHO if one feels differently they should probably carry a revolver OR no weapon at all...

Red Grant
December 23, 2006, 08:15 AM
Sorry to disappoint you,..........


Why shoud it disappoint me? :) I was merely explaining one of the "why's" of "Israeli method" to OBIWAN.

Slugthrower
December 23, 2006, 08:55 AM
The Israeli method of charging a semi-auto pistol is much preferred to the US Army sling shot method. I personally have always used the Israeli method, even when I did not know that it was their method. Four fingers and thumb is superior to using just the forefinger and thumb to load a pistol. My wife lacks the hand strength to use the sling shot, but can hold her hand tight to the body and push the pistol forward as the pistol slide is retracted much more efficiently this way. I also find that the purchase that this Israeli method gives me allows me to check my chamber safely without having to use other chamber checking methods.

Use what works for you, more than one way to skin a cat.

M1911
December 23, 2006, 09:27 AM
Yes, you can charge the chamber quickly if you have two hands free.

Yes, you can charge the chamber if you only have one hand free, but you can't do it quickly.

In a self defense situation, there is a good chance that your support hand might be busy -- pushing your spouse to safety, holding one of your children, or fending off the perp.

If you watch the video, it is clear that the shooter has spent many, many hours training. During that training time, he clearly could have learned to carry condition 1 or 2.

There is no point to condition 3. It doesn't help anything and in some situations it could put you dangerously behind the power curve.

miniuzi
December 23, 2006, 10:59 AM
Yes, you can charge the chamber if you only have one hand free, but you can't do it quickly.

You can charge a gun one handed just as fast as you can two handed if you know how. A few examples can be seen at the link below. You can charge off your belt, clothes, shoe, holster, etc... Right hand, left hand shouldn't matter at all.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9034463834822484305&q=mp5

It is simple and effective. Your mileage may vary.

M1911
December 23, 2006, 11:05 AM
No, it's not just as fast as using two hands. And no, it's not as fast as having the chamber charged in the first place.

Watch that video and think about it. He draws the gun out of the holster. Hooks the rear sight over his belt, pushes down, then presents the gun.

If the chamber was already charged, he would have drawn the gun out of the holster and presented.

Look at the rear sights on the gun he's using. Now look at the rear sights on your gun. If you are using Novak, or Wilson, or many other low-profile rear sights, you'll find that it's pretty hard to hook them on your belt. Practice it with dummy rounds, from concealment, and see how long it takes and how many times you screw it up. Once you are confident doing that, get your buddy to help out. Have him start pushing and shoving you while you try to do it and you try to fend him off with your left harm. Not so easy, is it?

Finally, the amount of time spent to learn how to do that reliably could be better spent learning how to handle a gun with a round in the chamber. Why spend all that time learning to quickly charge the chamber? What does it gain? Does it yield any tactical advantage? No. Is it a disadvantage in some circumstances? Yes. So why do it?

Think about it this way. Robbie Leathem, Doug Koenig, and all the other professional shooters will do anything to be just a bit faster. If it was faster to stand on your head or wear a pink tutu, they'd do it. Do they carry chamber empty? No, they don't. Because it is slower.

Deaf Smith
December 24, 2006, 04:33 PM
The only reason to carry a weapon in condition three, besides being ordered to, is because you work in crowds so much you worry about the weapon being snached.

One handed chambering, under pressure, is not a sure thing. You can shortvstroke the action easly and fail to chamber or cause a jam. You can miss the rear sight you were supposed to use to chamber the round. It just is a real iffy situation.

It is far better to just learn your weapon well, and carry it fully loaded.

sanson
December 24, 2006, 04:41 PM
I carry a SA auto with chambered round but hammer at rest. I can easily pull the hammer back with my shootin' hand. (other hand free).. the only reason I keep a chambered round is because it takes two hands to hold the gun & pull the slide.

Samurai
December 26, 2006, 10:25 AM
Watch it, there, orionengnr! My father-in-law has a seeing-eye chihuahua!

(I hope he's reading this, too!):p

OBIWAN
December 26, 2006, 10:57 AM
Mr. Smith nailed it....as usual

While I certainly want everyone to feel safe with their chosen sidearm

A whole lot can go wrong in the process of chambering a round

In addition to those obstacles listed, I would add the possibility that some pesky article of clothing could find its way into a bad place.:(

At contact distances a pistol without a round chambered will likely be employed as an impact weapon only...if it is not dropped during all that manuevering

In cases like that you would probably be better served with a good knife than an unloaded gun

miniuzi
December 26, 2006, 02:20 PM
I never said a one handed cocking motion was faster than having a round in the chamber. I simply provided proof countering 1911's statement that one handed cocking could not be done "quickly". It can. Obviously it is not intended to replace two handed shooting skills it is just another tool for the tool box to be used when needed. nothing more.

As far as doing it under pressure, I don't know. I've never had to do it while my life depended on it. But if I had to dig my rear sights into my own flesh to get the gun to load or clear a malfunction because my life depended on it I would do so.

And for the record I carry a Glock with a round in the chamber and have for many years safely. I would not think to carry with it in any other way.

Chindo18Z
December 26, 2006, 03:29 PM
That video (and the Israeli method of loading from Condition Three) has been around for many years.

It's not an optimum method for presentation, but is in fact the best the Israelis could come up with after mandating that their guys/gals would be required to carry empty chambers (in the interests of safety for relatively un-trained personnel).

It was a stupid idea then. It's a stupid idea today.

But back when that video came out, there was a huge market for Israeli Anything (Tactics, Training, Gear, Security Consultants, etc.). Someone is playing golf on a nice course today from the residuals of those video sales...

Carlo
December 28, 2006, 08:36 AM
Miniuzi pointed out: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...22484305&q=mp5

This reminds me of a frequent discussion-gag between me and my (target)shooting master; he's also a certified instructors' instructor in our police and can show loads of tricks for chambering rounds or simply present very fast from condition 3. We used to get into this kind of debate before competitions to releif tension, I always concluded: "You'll never convince me to do that sort of thing as long as we have any revolver left :D ".

Carlo

BlueTrain
December 28, 2006, 01:14 PM
I believe the original proponent of the chamber empty carry was Fairbairn, the policeman, in that he wrote a book on the subject. I don't think the army ever published a book for general circulation on handguns. In any event, during WWI the method in the army manual was hammer down on a loaded chamber. The 1911 can be carried safely that way, more or less, though lowering the hammer presents its own problems.

Fairbairn's chief concern was safety but he still thought the 1911 automatic was the best choice for the job. He didn't like safties, however, and went so far as to pin the safety lever permanently in the off position. I have heard that some folks pin the grip safety down on their 1911's but probably nobody here does that. He claimed his department was accident free.

Regarding revolvers, it wasn't that long ago that people were arguing the relative merits of single actions and double actions--for speed. Now that is the same argument going on here. I think the argument that if you can't handle a 1911 cocked and locked safely, then you shouldn't carry a gun at all is a bit arrogant and not unlike the suggestion that if you aren't an expert with a handgun then you shouldn't be allowed to carry one. Elmer Keith pretty much thought the same thing and a lot of other writers came close to saying the same thing, including Fairbairn. He suggested a double barrelled shotgun with external rebounding hammers!

But then again, I'm no expert.

OBIWAN
December 28, 2006, 02:33 PM
"I think the argument that if you can't handle a 1911 cocked and locked safely, then you shouldn't carry a gun at all"

I don't believe anyone is saying that

What at least a few of us are saying is that if C&L is not your thing you should probably not choose a 1911 or a Hi-Power

If you are not comfortable carrying ANY pistol with a round chambered...including the belt and suspenders safe (DA/SA with a safety)

Then maybe we could talk about not carrying

M1911
December 28, 2006, 08:09 PM
What at least a few of us are saying is that if C&L is not your thing you should probably not choose a 1911 or a Hi-Power+1

If cocked and locked gives you the heebee jeebees, then there are plenty of other very fine choices out there, from Glock, HK, Sig, S&W, etc., etc.; DA/SA, DAO, striker-fired; semi-auto or revolver.

I've never said the 1911 is the BEST gun. It may be the best gun for ME, but what works for me may not work for you (and vice versa).

NukemJim
December 28, 2006, 08:48 PM
"I think the argument that if you can't handle a 1911 cocked and locked safely, then you shouldn't carry a gun at all"

I don't believe anyone is saying that

Speaking strictly for myself, if you remove the 1911 from the first statement that is exactly what I was sensing. As always could be wrong.:o

As for condition 3 carry, again speaking strictly for myself, although I disagree with it, valid safety arguments can be made for it.

There are I believe 2 valid points here.

1) Condition 3 is slower in almost every circumstance.

2) Condition 3 is safer in regards to accident/negligent discharges

Whether the safety advantages outweigh the speed advantages is IMHO is a choice best left to the individual.

NukemJim

CarlosDJackal
December 28, 2006, 10:23 PM
And if you have to make that shot one-handed because you are carrying your child/keeping the attacker at bay/trying to hold yourself upright/ what-have-you, what will you do then? What are you going to do if you only have your offhand to make that shot?

Carrying an empty gun is like driving around the Interstate without your seatbelt on. If you can see the accident before it happens, you MIGHT have the time to snap it on.

Are you willing to count your life on this?

miniuzi
December 29, 2006, 12:58 AM
The Gun vs Knife video (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1459052511793821456&q=gun+vs+knife) which has been all over the internet a couple hundred times should make even the most timid of individuals think twice about not carrying locked and loaded.

The hard truth of the matter is you can't win every fight but you can give your loved ones a chance to make a run for it and you could take a bad guy or two with you. I'd rather spend my last moment on the planet putting a couple rounds in the guy that killed me instead of trying to chamber a round while he/they terrorize the ones I love. It's not a likely scenario to happen anytime soon thankfully but one less action I have to take the better.

Mark54g
December 29, 2006, 01:40 AM
Wow, that one google clip about one handed charging makes so much more sense if you can actually understand the Russian they are speaking.

Carlo
December 29, 2006, 06:02 AM
If that video demonstrates something, it is, in my opinion, that shooters may be too locked on a certain course of action. If the knife user has two feet, so does the gunman. Sidestepping, gaining distance and or tripping the charging knifeman before drawing would give much better results than just standing there and drawing. This over emphasis on two handed shooting is also hard to understand for me, you've got to fend off a contact weapon, use the weak hand to defend and the strong hand to shoot.
Besides, I've seen the entire video (that is just a part), it's purpose is to demonstrate that knife defense is a martial arts mith, it partially achieves it's object, but technical premises are wrong (real criminals don't play Zorro, stab you repeatedly and the average street blade isn't a lightsabre).

Carlo

Para Bellum
December 29, 2006, 06:11 PM
1. For a soldier the handgun (sidearm) is a backup / secondary weapon.

2. For a LEO or civilian it's primary. Fast one handed use in hand-to-hand combat situations is the primary function of a LEO/civilian handgun in real life. No time and no hand to rack the slide. You need your weak hand to get some control and/or distance into your fight.

3. Everybody is slower when the chamber is empty. We tried and tested it. The results were ridiculous for the advocats of empty chambers. One guy tore his suit-pants to pieces and cut his thigh with his iron sights while the guy simulating the full chamber already had gone click-click-click.

Glockoma
December 31, 2006, 04:00 AM
When I carry a Glock, the chamber is empty. To me personally, the increase in accidental discharge safety is worth more than loading time/convenience, as my lifestyle choices keep the probability of a sudden firefight exceedingly unlikely, and I trust in my ability to observe and maneuver such that I have a good chance of getting the time to draw and load when necessary.

I'm thinking of moving to a titanium DA revolver as the carry weapon of choice, though, and that one I'd carry loaded and locked.

M1911
December 31, 2006, 10:01 AM
I'm thinking of moving to a titanium DA revolver as the carry weapon of choice, though, and that one I'd carry loaded and locked.You're going to carry a DA revolver loaded and "locked"? Just how, pray tell, are you going to do that?

There is no manual safety (aka "lock") on a DA revolver.

Tokamak
January 1, 2007, 02:28 PM
The real problem is that we are talking about using a gun that is single action.

How about a firearm with a double action mechanism?

I carry one in the chamber, no safety and a leather holster that covers the trigger. I pull and shoot. In terms of safety, its like carrying a revolver.

I shot the 1911 in the military and enjoy shooting them at a range, but I do not carry one.

(woops someone did mention DA so change the title to I agree that the real problem is...)

Glockoma
January 1, 2007, 05:07 PM
Oops, I didn't mean DAO. :o I'm looking specifically at the Taurus 851SSULT DA/SA ultralight in .38spc, with a manual safety.

M1911
January 1, 2007, 08:10 PM
I'm looking specifically at the Taurus 851SSULT DA/SA ultralight in .38spc, with a manual safety.Huh? What revolver has a manual safety? That Taurus certainly does not.

http://www.taurususa.com/products/product-details.cfm?id=302&category=Revolver

G-Cym
January 1, 2007, 08:45 PM
Carrying an unloaded gun is ridiculous. If you can't deal with cocked and locked perhaps you shouldn't carry one !!

A very ignorant statement. A: a gun with a magazine full of bullets is not unloaded. B: you shouldn't be telling anyone "yous shouldn't carry" just because they protect themselves in a manner different than that which you protect your self. Get off your high horse.

Deaf Smith
January 1, 2007, 09:43 PM
G-Cym,

To have emergency transportation, like a car, set up with gas in the tank but none in the primer system cause you were worried that over time it might cause engine problems would be kind of foolish, right?

Or to have a inflateable life boat on your ship but have to get the bellows out of a locked hold would make it much harder to get that boat, right?

Now most, if not all, handguns today are pretty much drop safe. Most, if not all, can't fire without a definite pull of the trigger. So making it hard to even activate your personal safety device (the pistol) is kind off foolish since they are pretty safe fully loaded.

And that's why it's not good to carry chamber emtpy. It is emergency safety gear that may very well have to be used quickly, unexpectedly, and in not so ideal conditions. And that is why chamber empty is a bad idea most of the time.

G-Cym
January 1, 2007, 09:47 PM
You're right, for many people in most situations, carrying unchambered is not the best choice. But mete didn't say that. He said if you carry unchambered, you shouldn't carry at all. And that is wrong, and out of line.

Glockoma
January 2, 2007, 12:50 AM
M1911, I realized where I went wrong -- thanks for clearing this up.

What I thought to be a safety lever that's connected to the transfer bar, is a cylinder release. Duh! This was to be my first revolver, you see, and the only type I fired in the past was the fixed-cylinder SA type, so I got confused and forgot all about the cylinder swing out. Now that that's cleared up, it seems that carrying a DA-capable revolver with a fully loaded cylinder is similar to carrying a chambered Glock.

I think I'm stumbling toward the realization that I'd be more comfortable with a CCW piece that has a manual safety, such as the 1911. I don't want to grab for the Glock in the heat of the moment, misplace a finger when squeezing the grip, and blow a hole in my leg or my kid. That was the motivation for empty-chamber Glock carry, but I'm coming around to the 1911 + condition 1 line of thinking.

LSU12ga
January 2, 2007, 12:50 AM
I have, (born there) and i will tell you, its probably for the best that they carry this way. If you ever get a chance to go, you will notice that the military is everywhere, and i mean everywhere. walking around with loaded assult rifles and side arms. I'm sure they have the best intrest of the public at hand by walking around with an empty chamber. In israel, as i am sure you are all aware of, knive vs gun is not the issue. It is everyone vs plastic explosives and nails. Having a loaded gun will not do you any good against a man with a bomb strapped to him.

M1911
January 2, 2007, 08:00 PM
Now that that's cleared up, it seems that carrying a DA-capable revolver with a fully loaded cylinder is similar to carrying a chambered Glock.Indeed it is. If the gun is loaded and you pull the trigger, it goes bang. The main differences are that 1) the Glock has a higher capacity and 2) the revolver has a much longer, harder trigger pull
I think I'm stumbling toward the realization that I'd be more comfortable with a CCW piece that has a manual safety, such as the 1911. I don't want to grab for the Glock in the heat of the moment, misplace a finger when squeezing the grip, and blow a hole in my leg or my kid. That was the motivation for empty-chamber Glock carry, but I'm coming around to the 1911 + condition 1 line of thinking.Don't expect me to argue against carrying a 1911 condition 1...

However, if your fear is having your finger on the trigger when it shouldn't be there, then I would argue that the answer is more/better training not different equipment. I've attended Lethal Force Institute, Sigarms Academy, Smith & Wesson Academy, and Cumberland Tactics. I strongly suggest that you get your self to some additional training and then practice a lot dry.

You can screw up with a manual safety as well, so that's no panacea for a lack of training.

OBIWAN
January 3, 2007, 11:27 AM
"that shooters may be too locked on a certain course of action."

Truer words were never spoken

Too many people start carrying a gun and it replaces every other tool in the box

Even when it is NOT the best choice

Other tools

1. Avoidance- whether you are armed or not....it certainly should not be less important simply because you are armed

2. Unarmed skills- even if you are going to employ a firearm you are likely to need to fight your way clear enough to use it...or prevent the bad guy from taking it

3. Edged weapons- Can be more safely employed in some situations


Back to the topic at hand....an unloaded gun is akin to ....

#2 with handcuffs on- you have the key but you need to unlock them

#3 with a folding knife that requires two hands to open:D

jem375
January 3, 2007, 11:42 AM
It's kind of amusing that people who have absolutely no experience in life or death situations can even question how the Israeli's handle their firearms. These people have been raised in those situations for many, many years and have mandatory armed forces service for both women and men.
I remember years ago seeing a picture of a bus where everyone on the bus were either carrying a Uzi or handgun and I am pretty sure they knew how to use them.

BlueTrain
January 3, 2007, 12:11 PM
It appears the safety element advanced by advocates of chamber empty carry has been ignored by those who suggest other carry methods. The problem is not so much any possible danger in actually carrying an automatic with a chambered cartridge as it is the danger in unloading the pistol. I am assuming the handgun is unloaded at some point in a 24-hour day or it the pistol continually cocked and locked. The same issue applied to a double action automatic but not to a double action revolver or some single action revolvers.

Whatever you may think of that possible problem, Fairbairn appeared to have been more concerned with the safety of an automatic, Colt in his case, being on safe when you needed it off. None of you would ever have a problem like that. On top of that, handguns in his department were turned in at the end of the shift and re-issued to the next shift. What a concept!

This is beside the point but it has been suggested by one magazine writer that handguns are inherently safer than long guns and are generally intended to be carried ready for use. That may be arguable but all things considered, they should be expected to be, if nothing else.

jem375
January 3, 2007, 12:29 PM
In the Navy on SP duty, it was mandatory to carry a 1911 in condition 3 and my son who was an MP at Ft. Bragg also stated that he carried in cond. 3 so it is not unusual to have chamber empty. Even in Germany in the 80's, MP's at his base carried their M16's and 1911's with chamber empty, No big deal at all..
Of course everyone has their own idea on how to carry and whatever suits the individual is up to him or her.

BillCA
January 3, 2007, 03:57 PM
I think people are overlooking an essential truth here.

Israelis carry a pistol in condition 3 because it's Israeli law.

Israel's carry laws require the gun to be carried with an empty chamber (to prevent accidental discharges) and with the safety off. This way, in the event of an attack, any Israeli can take the gun from another injured Israeli, rack the slide and commence firing. Part of this is due, as someone else pointed out, to the incredible hodge-podge of firearm types carried. Their method works for their particular needs.

I should also point out that Israelis are limited to possessing only 50 rounds of ammunition and that ammo is only sold at state sanctioned ranges.

For civilian carry, I see no sense in carrying in Condition 3. This is especially true with more modern DA/SA and DAO pistols. If you are not comfortable with a C&L style carry, purchase a pistol that doesn't require that mode.

BlueTrain
January 3, 2007, 05:00 PM
I'm glad to hear Israel has such liberal laws.

If what I was thinking is true (that the danger is in the actual chambering and unloading), then all automatics are in the same boat. It doesn't matter what sort of carry condition is possible with a given automatic. Hammer down on a loaded chamber would be especially difficult but at least one double action automatic has no hammer drop safety, though it can be carried cocked and locked. Some single action automatics cannot be carried hammer down, including Stars and pre-war Colt hammerless autos. Only revolvers can be loaded and unloaded without manipulating the hammer, except for some single actions, though for autos I am referring to a chambered round.

The Israel method appears to be the Fairbairn method of handgun drill, more or less.

G-Cym
January 3, 2007, 06:24 PM
For civilian carry, I see no sense in carrying in Condition 3. This is especially true with more modern DA/SA and DAO pistols. If you are not comfortable with a C&L style carry, purchase a pistol that doesn't require that mode.


+1

And for those that do carry C+L pistols, like 1911s, stop telling others that their choice of pistol isn't as good as yours.

M1911
January 4, 2007, 08:29 AM
And for those that do carry C+L pistols, like 1911s, stop telling others that their choice of pistol isn't as good as yours.I haven't seen anyone saying that.

While I prefer 1911s, I also have 3 Glocks, a couple Sigs, 4 Kahrs, a couple HKs, numerous S&W revolvers. I'd feel well-armed with any of them.

David Armstrong
January 5, 2007, 06:10 PM
I am also sick of the arguments in FAVOR of condition 3 carry... to me it is a matter of common sense... the advantages of condition 3 carry DO NOT outway the advantages of condition one carry...
Coming in a little late here (gotta love those long vacations!) but many people are equally sick of the arguments that favor condition 1 carry as being the only way, and try to claim that condition 3 is useless. It is a matter of common sense, but that common sense has to look at the needs of each person, what their situation is, and so on. In some situations chamber empty carry provides advantages over chamber loaded carry. In others, chamber loaded carry offers advantages over chamber empty carry. In most situations it really doesn't matter much, truth be told. But to try to say that a person who chooses to go with chamber empty carry shouldn't carry at all, or is unsafe, or afraid, or is defenseless, or any of those other things, flies in the face of common sense as well as the history of defensive gun use.

Israelis carry a pistol in condition 3 because it's Israeli law.
Yes, but many Israelis outside of Israel continue to carry condition 3, as do many individuals and organizations outside of Israel. Chamber empty carry was the norm for most of the 20th Century, and it is still the norm in some pretty tough places and for some pretty tough people today.

Para Bellum
January 6, 2007, 07:32 AM
Chamber empty carry was the norm for most of the 20th Century, and it is still the norm in some pretty tough places and for some pretty tough people today.
It still is putting one's self at great disadvantage. The video and the techniques shown are pretty pittyful. Fist of all the guy runs for 10-15m towards the target, then racks the slide, squats down and only then fires. If his target hat a gun itsself, it could take him out the moment he started running. I bet I'd hit that guy at least 6 times COM before he got his first shot off in this particular drill just by standing, drawing aiming and firing.

And even that gun makes no sense to me Shabak/Shin Bet carry Glock19s anyway...

gvf
January 7, 2007, 03:06 AM
I posted originally and the Israeli tape was here becasuse I thoguht it was interesting. The arguing about condtions sounds like they are religions. It's nuts.

The chances of anyone ever having a CCW incident requiring them to draw a weapon are extremely small,and in a very large percentage of those highly unlikely occasions the BG flees. Out of the remainder, how many people are killed yearly becasue their 1911 pistol was in condition 3 instead of 1 or visa-versa? At some point, such a minute risk - if it does in fact lie in one of those - is as acceptable as any other of the scores of minute risks we all face and accept daily without altering our choices at all to lessen them or even being aware of them: eating a hamburger (Mad Cow!), buying tires every 2 or 3 years instead of every year (not as safe driving!), keeping a cell phone on during thunder storms (increased chance of lightening strike!) etc., etc, etc...........

If you really want to focus on something significant in CCW, it would likey be having any weapon placed on your person that would allow it to be drawn in a count of 3, with 1 or 2 of those taken up by shock, when totally surprised by a BG, in 20 degree weather under coats, sweaters, scarves and with mittens or gloves on - or carrying groceries home on a windy, rainy day with a hooded rain jacket and wet hands or, if you're lucky, under even ideal conditions.

Out of the 73 homicides last year in my city 17 of the victims (including two babies) were innocent people minding their own business. A good half of those were surprised in the type of situations I described above. None of them were CCW but if any had been, unless they could get a weapon out as fast as I said, they would be as dead as they actually are. And we could be them.

(Another fact , even if off topic: a majority of the killers found were under the age of 18, one was 13)

MicroBalrog
January 7, 2007, 04:54 AM
Remember that the Israeli Ministry of Internal Affairs distributes a manual to gun licensees that advises 'safe' practices on carrying and owning guns.

One of the practices advices is to carry the pistol with the safety off and the chamber empty.

The rationale is, supposedly (don't know if true) that if you are injured or disabled by a terrorist shooting, another civilian, not necessarily aware of the workings of the particular safety your gun uses, will pick it up and continue shooting.

This actually happened, too.

I think a Tel-Aviv lawyer got an award from the Mayor of Tel-Aviv for pickiung up someone's gun and using it on a BG some years back.

Don't quote me.

MicroBalrog
January 7, 2007, 04:56 AM
And even that gun makes no sense to me Shabak/Shin Bet carry Glock19s anyway...

Some of them do. THere's no real standartisation in pistols of thE Israeli forces.

Also, just for fun:

Picture of an actual Shin-Bet-Kuf person. (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v42/allanea/Meretz/beilin010.jpg)

gvf
January 7, 2007, 07:14 AM
like i said, a religion. (see the ignored post 2 above)

Tokamak
January 9, 2007, 11:23 AM
"If you do not carry one in the chamber, cocked with the safety on you might as well not be carrying. You will not be able to rack the slide fast enough, blah, blah, blah" :rolleyes:

How about this. If you really want to be ready to shoot, carry your gun in your hand, safety off, finger on the trigger and point it at everyone you pass. Now you are really talking speed. Ignore the screams of the grandmas you scare, you can always shoot them to shut them up :D

Oh yeah, and get with it. The whimpy .45 and .357 have been surpassed by the mighty .50 cal handgun. Don't forget your extra 1,000 rounds of ammo.

NOTE: The above is SARCASM. I am not serious. Although, you might call it a reducto-ad-absurdum argument...

Doug.38PR
January 9, 2007, 02:22 PM
Are my eyes fooling me or did I see the guy in the video pull back the slide with his finger INSIDE the trigger guard?

Glenn E. Meyer
January 9, 2007, 02:41 PM
As Dave and I have posted over the years, it's all relative risk analysis and which do you fear?

1. ND on the draw, etc.
2. Bad guy gets your gun
3. You are too slow to get the gun into action with unchambered carry

I always carried chambered because I once broke my wrist, ribs and badly sprained my ankle. The wrist and ribs were dominant side. Thus I had to switch hands for carry. One handed chambering is a royal pain. In fact, I took a class in injured shooters techniques with my arm in the cast and ankle wrapped up. Used my nondominant hand. Real word experience and strange serendipity. I then took LFI-1 and the Stressfire component with my non dominant hand a couple of weeks later.

Thus, if on the off chance, I lose use of a hand - I'm not futzing with the gun as unchambered techniques are a pain, esp. if you just got knock on your butt and are injured. That's my personal risk analysis as compared to yours. I have seen shooters draw a chambered 1911 and almost shoot their toes off.

But most people think that the gun fight will be the single mugger showdown I like to post:

Hello - I will mug you now.
NO - I'm drawing my gun.
Oh, I run away now.

No shots fired!!

Then no rounds in the gun work well also.

So you really don't have to worry if you play the odds.

OBIWAN
January 9, 2007, 03:58 PM
If your goal is the ability to put the weapon into action quickly then there is no advantage to chamber empty carry

If your aim is "safety" (or the illusion therof) then chamber empty may be an advantage

I know people that carry chamber empty on a DA auto....I have no idea how you accidently fire a weapon with a 12 lb trigger (unless you have your finger on it ) but it makes them feel better

All handguns are safe in a good holster

Where problems occur (generally) is in gun-handling

Drawing, holstering, etc.

What I worry about is people training one way and carrying another

Even those people that I know that carry unchambered weapons practice with "one-in-th-pipe"

They are not unloading the chamber after every string

So they generally get very little practice in actually employing the weapon

And very few people practice one hand shooting enough let alone one hand manipulations

Despite the fact that a great many gun-battle injuries are to the hands because of the tendencey to "tunnel in on the weapon"

And I know of nobody that carries a revolver with the next hole empty...I wonder why that is:confused:

David Armstrong
January 9, 2007, 05:04 PM
It still is putting one's self at great disadvantage.
Not necessarily, and that is my point. Depending on a variety of factors chamber empty offers certain advantages and disadvantages, and chamber loaded offers certain advantages and disadvantages. Usually the advantages and disadvantages are irrelevant to the situation, and either mode will work fine. Sometimes one works better than the other. If chamber empty carry was much of a disadvantage regularly we would have seen some evidence of that over the years. We haven't.

M1911
January 9, 2007, 06:35 PM
What I worry about is people training one way and carrying another

Even those people that I know that carry unchambered weapons practice with "one-in-th-pipe"

They are not unloading the chamber after every string

So they generally get very little practice in actually employing the weapon

And very few people practice one hand shooting enough let alone one hand manipulations+1

Choose how you are going to carry. Then carry that way and train that way.

If you are carrying condition 3, then practice drawing condition 3. If you are going to carry condition 2, then practice drawing condition 2, etc., etc.

I see a fair number of people that carry condition 2, but at the range, they charge the chamber and fire, never decocking. Any bets on whether their first shot from DA will hit their target?

BlueTrain
January 9, 2007, 06:59 PM
The problems mentioned in the previous post are two:

One, a lot of ranges will not allow practice more realistic than that of formal target shooting, either because of range layout and conditions (usually space) and for safety reasons. By all this I mean that drawing from a holster and shooting may not be possible. This makes doing that as a training exercise impossible.

Likewise, there remains a difference between training and experience. That probably goes without saying and admitting the fact does nothing to solve the problem. It is a built-in problem of most training that various conditions (of a range and of a training situation) are unrealistic or otherwise necessary simple for purposes of management. Still, some training is better than none, I suppose, and I am at a loss for a better solution. All the same, some training details could probably be changed with real life situations in mind. But given the low possibility of any given armed individual (here I am thinking of the police mainly) actually being in a shooting incident, it isn't surprising that rangemasters and training officers having other things in their minds.

As a comparison, if you go hunting, you probably want to spend some time at the range before the season opens but you probably don't regard that as much in the way of any realistic preparation for a deer hunt.

M1911
January 10, 2007, 07:37 PM
The problems mentioned in the previous post are two:

One, a lot of ranges will not allow practice more realistic than that of formal target shooting, either because of range layout and conditions (usually space) and for safety reasons. By all this I mean that drawing from a holster and shooting may not be possible. This makes doing that as a training exercise impossible.Bluetrain:

I think you are missing my point. If you can't draw from a holster at the range, it doesn't matter how you carry -- you still have to deal with the same restrictions on your training. That is, you will be just as disadvantaged if you carry condition 1 and can't draw from the holster at the range as you would be if you carry condition 2 (or condition 3) and can't draw from the holster. So whether or not you can draw from a holster at the range is orthogonal to what condition you carry in.

Furthermore, there are ways to train even if the range rules are difficult. For example, if you normally carry condition 3, when you are at the range, start with your chamber empty, but a loaded magazine. Point the gun at the target, charge the chamber and fire. Repeat. When you get home, put a target on the basement wall, load your magazine with snap caps, and practice drawing from a holster with the chamber empty, charging the chamber, and dry-firing at your target.

Similarly, if you normally carry condition 2, when you go the range, load your gun, decock, fire the first round DA, the second round SA. Rinse, lather repeat. When you get home, draw and dry-fire as described above, but start DA.

I shoot IDPA. I was stuck at Marksman level for a while. What allowed me to progress beyond Marksman was dry drills, starting from the holster, in the basement. While I'm doing that Condition 1, it can just as easily be done Condition 2 or Condition 3.

Nevertheless, the point is that if you normally carry condition 3, but start at the range condition 1, how do you think you will ever remember to charge the chamber in a crisis situation? Or if you carry condition 2, but practice condition 1, how do you think you will make a fast, accurate first shot in a crisis situation? Or if you carry condition 1, but start at the range in condition 0 (cocked and safety off), how do you think you will remember to take off the safety in a crisis situation?

Train the way you fight, fight the way you train. And there are ways to work within suboptimal range rules with a bit of imagination.

Carlo
January 11, 2007, 06:31 AM
If you're wondering what condition is best to carry an autoloader, when you've an injured hand-arm, my suggestion would be: none, carry a revolver.
I had my dominant hand bandaged and out of service for dog bites, years ago, I managed to do some shooting with autos, but by far the safest implements to handle in those circumstances were my sixguns.
Sixguns, even top break ones, are easier to load and unload safely with only one hand.

Carlo

Para Bellum
January 13, 2007, 04:12 AM
It's kind of amusing that people who have absolutely no experience in life or death situations can even question how the Israeli's handle their firearms.
what do you know about "us"?

MicroBalrog
January 14, 2007, 01:21 AM
It's kind of amusing that people who have absolutely no experience in life or death situations can even question how the Israeli's handle their firearms.

You think the people that made up that Ministry of Interior guideline have such experience? Ha!

Anon
January 14, 2007, 12:22 PM
I'm surprised no one mentioned this after seeing the Russian video
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2196566#post2196566

...

The 1911 was DESIGNED to be able to chamber a round one handed. Cavalry soldiers held their reigns in one hand. To reload, they dumped the mag, holstered the gun, seated a new mag, drew and racked the slide on their holster in the same manner shown in the video.

Carlo
January 15, 2007, 06:41 AM
Anyway, realistically, I would be happy to carry what israeli law permit (condition 3) and even with added restrictions (22 in condition 3), more than what my country's law permit me (all I want inside my house, unless I belong to a restricted elite of "people at risk"). It is certainly faster to draw from condition 3 than from your home safe.

Carlo

BlueTrain
January 15, 2007, 08:57 AM
It occurs to me that proponents of cocked and locked carry are usually also proponents of always using two hands for shooting. However, it also occurs to me that most gunwriters of the past were much less dogmatic about which guns to carry and carry methods than more recent ones. But certain other things also turn up.

I don't think too many gunwriters in the past thought very much about civilian carry, at least concealed carry. Some were actually opposed to civilian carry to a certain degree. Naturally they all had their own point of view, which would have been based on their own experiences. Some of them gave very little attention to the actual handgun and carry method, instead focusing entirely on the shooting particulars. At the same time, it is also worth mentioning that some had absolutely no gunfighting experience, including some very highly regarded writers. None were Israeli. None that I have in mind are still alive--but none died from a gunshot wound.

Some were law enforcement, some were not. Most were involved in competitive shooting but it was just about all formal target shooting. Many were also interested in some form of quick draw, though not all. I mention (without naming) those people mainly because they wrote and were good writers who articulated their thoughts on the subject, something I'm not especially good at.

This however should be true. The more you train and practice with one particular weapon in one particular carry method, you are bound to get better with it that way, and also the further away you get from other ways of doing things, which doesn't mean everybody else has the wrong idea.

You don't expect everyone to crease their hat the same way, do you?

OBIWAN
January 15, 2007, 10:34 AM
I am at a loss

What is the advantage of chamber empty carry...just need one

Other than some perceived sense of safety:confused:

BlueTrain
January 15, 2007, 10:41 AM
Safety is the primary reason. The second reason is in not having to do anything with safeties, ironically. Note however that there automatics that do not have safeties anyway(I am not including Glocks). If you do not think firearms are dangerous, there is no reason at all. After all, I am only familiar with no more than five people (that I personally was acquainted with) who have been killed with firearms but one of them was with a shotgun.

Lord_Nikon
January 15, 2007, 11:01 AM
Zzzzzzzzzz... hunh? Another of these threads? Carry condition 1 or leave it at home?

Is it really that big a deal to anyone here whether someone else is carrying condition 1 or 3? Keep in mind, the vast majority of the population isn't carrying anything at all, so condition 3 is better than most. Will it get you killed if someone else doesn't share your carry condition? I doubt it. Let people carry as they want to, without needless flaming.

Mannlicher
January 15, 2007, 03:50 PM
that sort of silliness is fine for an army grunt. They rely on their rifle, and use a handgun only in isolated instances. A Civilian is much more likely to be attacked without warning, and most often has no rifle with them. Having your handgun ready to go is only prudent.
The two uses are as different as oranges and apples.

Deaf Smith
January 15, 2007, 07:56 PM
Why not just carry the gun empty if safety is such a consern. It don't take but a few seconds to insert a mag and rack. You can justify that by the number of cops that leave their guns where their own kids get them and blow their brains out (Washington D.C. has had ALOT of that happen!)

Like OBIWAN, I to am at a loss. The weapons are not that complicated and the safety mechanicisms today are quite good.

OBIWAN
January 15, 2007, 11:15 PM
Thanks DS

People...come on

If you are that concerned about a ND then might I suggest getting a nice DA/SA pistol with a decocker AND manual safety (belt AND suspenders)

If you don't feel safe with a round chambered in one of those with the hammer down and the safety engaged....well.......

Nope...I won't say it...but really! ;)

I know we were originally talking about an alternative to C&L

But maybe...just maybe....you shouldn't have that type of pistol if you are that concerned about the operating system (I said maybe)


I will ask again...do any of you revolver toters keep the next hole in the cylinder empty?

Not the one under the hammer....the one that will come up when/if you pull the DA trigger (or cock it)

Can you even imagine it:confused:

And what is the difference?

I shoot mostly Glocks and 1911's

I am amazed at how difficult it is to get one to go bang without really trying....I have never managed it

It is not my intention to make anyone feel bad about their choices

I want everyone to feel safe...and be safe.....

But like Louis Awerbuck says in this months SWAT (paraphrasing)

They call it a gunfight cause youy are trying to shoot the other guy before he shoots you

Dicking around loading your handgun is going to put you behind the curve....

We are the good guys...almost by definition the bad guy will have a head start;)

BlueTrain
January 16, 2007, 06:26 AM
Well, here's a kicker: I have a US Army NCO's manual that says to carry the .45 auto hammer down, chamber loaded but to carry revolvers with only five rounds. Anyhow, what makes you so sure we're all good guys?

shooter71
January 17, 2007, 01:40 PM
if you want to carry a Hi Power with a loaded chamber and dont want cocked and locked..why not just get the FN SFS, with the decocker on it

David Armstrong
January 17, 2007, 01:56 PM
I will ask again...do any of you revolver toters keep the next hole in the cylinder empty?
Doubtful, but a lot of revolver toters did carry with the chamber under the hammer empty---for safety. And that is the point: different guns, different people , different situations, all can lead to different needs and a different optimal response. Chamber loaded carry 100% of the time is no more valid than is chamber empty 100% of the time. Too many fail to realize there are multiple concerns and issues out there that can lead to a fully acceptable conclusion diametrically opposed to their own.
They call it a gunfight cause youy are trying to shoot the other guy before he shoots you
But that is only one part of the CCW issue, and a relatively rare part at that. Certainly it is one consideration, but it is certainly not the only consideration, and for some it might not even be the main consideration.
The weapons are not that complicated and the safety mechanicisms today are quite good.

And yet look at the large number of AD/NDs that occur, even among well-trained and experienced gun owners.

Covert Mission
February 6, 2007, 07:47 PM
There are some cases where carrying Condition 3 (loaded mag in gun, chamber empty) can be feasible or necessary. I almost always carry loaded chamber, as I usually carry in an IWB holster, and there's no reason not to carry Condition 1/hot, imo. Bear in mind that many NDs occur on reholstering, due to finger in trigger guard or clothing in guard. won't happen w/Condition 3.

Sometimes though, I carry a Glock in a (non-gun) fanny pack w/o a holster insert. I wouldn't ever carry a Glock condition 1 that way, though I would with some DA/SA autos maybe, or a revo. Condition 3 is fine. Same with jacket pocket carry...condition 3.

I disagree that you're automatically disadvantaged this way in all cases. With practice, you can present the pistol and chamber a round almost in the same motion, with scant delay, as the Israelis practice. You will certainly draw attention to yourself, the sound of the slide being racked being quite obvious. If you need to draw a "hot" gun discreetly to prepare for engagement, this isn't the way!

If you find yourself in a position to have to "drag race" on your draw, you may have a problem pure draw speed won't resolve (especially from concealment). In other words, someone's gotten the drop on you. Still, I usually prefer a belt holster and Condition 1. And don't forget Larry Vicker's motto: "Speed is fine, accuracy is final"

One other advantage, hypothetically, I can see to Condition 3 with many autos. If your gun is snatched from you, and the chamber's empty, that second when the snatcher pulls the trigger, it goes "click", and he's temporarily confused, might buy you enough time to fight back successfully. (If you carry a 1911, and he can't figure out the safety drill, you might buy the same extra time).

FWIW.

revjen45
February 6, 2007, 08:33 PM
Earlier post referred to cond 0 as an empty gun. I thought cond 0 meant a single action carried cocked with the safety off. Not for the faint of heart or the incompetent. Whatever I'm carrying for SD is 'fully loaded" as they say in the newspapers. If a life threatening situation develops and I NEED my gun against an undetermined number of assailants I don't want to go in 1 round down to start with or take the chance that the 1st one won't feed. I'm not an "operative"- I'm a fat old man who stands no chance if I try to run. If all of a sudden I have to fight for my life against 1 or more sociopaths I want the 1st round in the barrel and some more magazines- maybe another gun too.

Lurper
February 7, 2007, 02:11 PM
GVF staying on your original topic (somewhat) I find the video interesting in revealing how unskilled these guys are and how impractical the "israeli draw" is.
Granted, if some of the comments are accurate then this method of carry may be forced out of necessity due to law. But can anyone with any common sense truly believe that this method is as fast as condition 1 or any pistol w/a round in the chamber? Come on. I'm not advocating that everyone carry a SA auto cocked and locked. If you aren't comfortable with that carry a DA auto or revolver.

Just watch the video and (poor technique aside) you can see that a skilled pistol shooter could draw and drop these guys in their tracks before they even finished crouching ("Skilled" being the key word - that should tell you that training is the most important part). Adding the need to rack the slide only exacerbates the situation - especially if something goes wrong. There are several other problems with the technique used, but since the original thread wasn't really about technique, I won't elaborate.

Is it an alternative to cocked and locked? In the literal sense, yes, but is it a viable or wise one? No, a more viable option would be a DA auto or revolver. There really isn't a time when carrying an empty chamber makes more sense. The military does it because their training is geared to the lowest common denominator and because the budget does not allow them to train each member to a reasonable level of competency. Even in the rare cases where the pistol is the primary weapon (with the exception of SPECOPS). Ask a SPECOPS operator what condition they carry in. I cannot think of any valid reason where safety (of the firearm) outweighs survival. The most important factor in surviving a gun fight (second to mindset) is the ability to put lead on the target as quickly as possible. The "israeli draw" just adds more time and a lot more variables and opportunity for disaster. After all, how much safer are you going to feel when you are dead?

waynedm
February 7, 2007, 03:20 PM
I don't want to watch the video bad enough to download Quicktime. :barf:

OBIWAN
February 7, 2007, 03:25 PM
Lurper is absolutely correct

When our troops DO carry chamber empty it is becasue we don't trust them with live ammo...not because it is the best approach

"Too many fail to realize there are multiple concerns and issues out there that can lead to a fully acceptable conclusion diametrically opposed to their own."

I realize that opinions and methods can differ...I am just looking for some coherent justification...other than not feeling safe with a round chambered

I mean...I can accept that some might want to carry their pistol unloaded with the ammo in a different pocket

I just can't imagine them describing that as efficent

Covert Mission
February 7, 2007, 06:06 PM
It all depends on your "mission profile". Most of us aren't Special Operators, kicking doors, clearing buildings, snatching tangos.

Of course, we can't predict how and when we might need a gun. As one wise sage put it: "If you knew you were gonna need a gun to go there, why would you go?" Most of have a choice to at least reduce the predictable risk, if not the unknown, unpredictable ones. Avoid the ready-teller at 2 ayem.

So, for some people in everyday life, condition 3 in a fanny pack, jacket pocket, or the like may be the best occasional choice. Not ideal for all situations, or even many maybe. Then again, how many people leave their gun at home or in the car, because they "probably won't need it." Condition 3, on your person, trumps that by a lot!

Carlo
February 7, 2007, 06:36 PM
Lurper wrote: Just watch the video and (poor technique aside) you can see that a skilled pistol shooter could draw and drop these guys in their tracks before they even finished crouching ("Skilled" being the key word - that should tell you that training is the most important part).

Well, let's not knock israeli technique with imaginary confrontations, it has actually been developed upon combat experience. I am of a different school myself, yet I don't see why we should knock something that actually worked. :confused:

Lurper
February 7, 2007, 08:33 PM
Well, let's not knock israeli technique with imaginary confrontations, it has actually been developed upon combat experience. I am of a different school myself, yet I don't see why we should knock something that actually worked.
Not to be confrontational, but what proof do you have that 1. It was developed from combat experience and 2. that it actually worked?

I didn't create any imaginary scenarios, I simply stated what common sense dictates. It is an inferior technique. The IDF to some people have a mythical quality - whatever they have/do/teach must be the best in the world. In fact, the military and Law enforcement communities have always lagged behind civilians when it comes to pistolcraft. That is why they pay us to teach them technique.

Because it's not really what the original thread is about, I didn't want to debate technique, but maybe this will help. Take two people of equal ability (or time the same person using both techniques) and the person carrying in condition 1 will be able to put lead on the target faster. Every time. You cannot seriously debate otherwise. Remove the proficiency variable and it is simple. The "israeli draw" has more steps before engaging the target than simply drawing and disengaging the safety. It may only be 2/10 or it may be half a second, but it is definately slower. Not taking into consideration the huge drawbacks of the "combat crouch" technique used in the video.

While it is true that conditin 3 is better than the gun at home, I still can see no reason or mission profile that makes any sense to carry in that condition.

David Armstrong
February 7, 2007, 09:13 PM
I just can't imagine them describing that as efficent
Perhaps we could describe something as efficient if it has worked successfully in a variety of situations and in a variety of places that were quite dangerous without any noticable problems. Becaue theat is what we have with chamber empty carry---a technique that has been used most of the time and in most of the world with a long record of success. To me that is the most telling point of the discussion. One can discuss all sorts of imagined problems, but the harsh light of historical reality says that it is a technique that works, and works well.
Not to be confrontational, but what proof do you have that 1. It was developed from combat experience and 2. that it actually worked?
One should look into the history of gunfighting and how the techniques were developed to find that proof. Suffice it to say that the chamber empty carry was developed in a place that was considered one of the most dangerous cities in the world at the time, and was refined during World War II, and finally popularized by the IDF.
It is an inferior technique.
No. It is a different technique. Whether it is inferior or superior depends on the situation and your specific concerns.
Take two people of equal ability (or time the same person using both techniques) and the person carrying in condition 1 will be able to put lead on the target faster.
Well, there is a lot more to it than just that, however. First, the assumption is questionable on its face, as the chamber movement can be incorporated into the full draw stroke. Then there is the issue of accuracy to consider. Then of course there is the important "if there is a difference does it matter" question. Few DGU incidents are resolved based on tiny fractions of a second. Finally, as mentioned before, putting lead on the target is only one part of the CCW experience, and the other parts can be just as important, maybe more so, depending on the person and the situation.

Lurper
February 7, 2007, 10:50 PM
Perhaps we could describe something as efficient if it has worked successfully in a variety of situations and in a variety of places that were quite dangerous without any noticable problems. Becaue theat is what we have with chamber empty carry---a technique that has been used most of the time and in most of the world with a long record of success. To me that is the most telling point of the discussion. One can discuss all sorts of imagined problems, but the harsh light of historical reality says that it is a technique that works, and works well.

Fairbairn et al. aside, the mechanics themselves demonstrate that the technique is slower. In my opinion, slower is inferior. I don't know about you, but I for one don't want to have to take a round anywhere before I return fire. While you are correct that cycling the slide can be incorporated into the draw, it cannot be accomplished as quickly as drawing and disengaging a safety. Again, just because Fairbairn, Cooper, the IDF or USMC used the method bears no relevance on its efficiency. You can prove it by using a timer.

First, the assumption is questionable on its face, as the chamber movement can be incorporated into the full draw stroke. Then there is the issue of accuracy to consider. Then of course there is the important "if there is a difference does it matter" question. Few DGU incidents are resolved based on tiny fractions of a second. Finally, as mentioned before, putting lead on the target is only one part of the CCW experience, and the other parts can be just as important, maybe more so, depending on the person and the situation.

While I respect your opinion D. A., I beg to differ. Best case scenario is that the "israeli draw" is going to slow you down by about 2/10 or more. If you can find the links to the videos I posted before, you will see that with a stock Kimber I can hit COM at 7yds with .18 between shots using full power ,45 loads. So, that 2/10 means that you are going to take two rounds. As for accuracy, after you cycle the slide, your weak hand is chasing the pistol or you are going to fire strong hand only. Either way it is not going to be as accurate as a properly mounted pistol. Add the crouching which means that the body, head (eyes), arms, gun (sights) are moving and the upward swinging style draw stroke and you have a recipe for inaccuracy. A proper draw is up and out, not out and up. That way, you can accurately fire from any point in the draw stroke. Not only that, but once you acquire the sights (or front of the pistol), you lessen the chance of losing them because the movement is in a straight line away from you, not up.

Nothing is more important than hitting your target quickly (preferably before being hit). You don't know if that first shot is going to miss or kill you. In the latter case, nothing else really does matter. Therefore, hitting the target quickly is paramount. Also, no one I know is just going to fire one round and stop. I will fire no less than 3. If you watch the video, the shooters have the weapon almost halfway through the draw stroke before the slide is cycled. A well trained pistol shooter can shoot accurately at 7 yds well before that using the proper technique.

I was trying to avoid turning the thread into a debate about technique since I don't think that was the intent of the original post. My apologies for the drift.

BlueTrain
February 8, 2007, 07:52 AM
The combat techniques of both Fairbairn and Applegate were based on combat and police gunfighting experiences and entirely so. Absolutely nothing was derived from target shooting, shooting games like IPSC or cowboy action shooting or the like. The experiences of the two above drew on somewhat different experiences but they did work together for a while.

Applegate went so far as to go back to the well known Wild West gunfighters to try to learn something about what they did and how they managed to survive. Isn't it interesting how the gunfight at the OK Corral keeps coming up in this context? A couple of Hollywood moviemakers actually knew one of the original participants, but that's getting away from the point.

Both Fairbairn and Applegate became trainers and were faced with distinct challenges. Fairbairn was with a very large police department of varied ethnic backgrounds. His aim was to produce policemen who could win gunfights (they had a lot) and avoid shooting themselves at the same time. In other words, safety in gun handling was also considered of primary importance. You should find it interesting that they were equipment mainly with Colt 1911's. They also used .380 Colt pocket autos and some Webley .455 revolvers. His beliefs were based on his first hand experiences as a policeman.

Applegate was training men who only had a short time to learn practical combat pistol shooting and his techniques were based almost entirely on the experiences of men he had trained and then gone into combat, apparently mostly on raids. He was a believer in point shooting, in his own fashion. It seems both pistols and revolvers were used. Both men also were serious about hand to hand combat, both with knives and bare hands.

Other than Fairbairn's insistence that the safeties on automatics not be used, neither spend much time about carrying the pistol or on fast draw but almost all of their effort went into the actual shooting. Reading what they had to say, you will note the lack of narrow dogma. There is nothing about customing pistols (other than Fairbairn's comments about a Fitz New Service revolver), nothing much about ammunition and nothing to speak of about reloading. Their main focus was on hitting the target (the other guy) before he was able to hit you. Accuracy and fast. You can't miss fast enough to make up for anything.

It also sounds like both men lived in worlds where you did not have the luxury to spend a couple of hours each weekend honing your shooting skills. Fairbairn even believed that competitive target shooting was detrimental to your combat skills. This isn't to say he wasn't progressive. Both, I think, believed in using two hands when possible for targets further away. Fairbairn even complained that the sights on stock guns were very poor for that purpose, too. All said, however, it doesn't sound like they either imagined anything like a fast draw contest or having to make a quick draw, especially from concealment. In that respect, their advice is not helpful.

Finally, about that "combat crouch." Neither men invented it as part of an overall combat technique but rather recognized that if you are getting shot at or think that is about to happen, you very naturally crouch. They merely allowed their trainees to do what was natural. Besides, gunfighting was a very dynamic thing and people were expected to be moving around, not standing stock still and upright.

David Armstrong
February 8, 2007, 02:50 PM
Fairbairn et al. aside, the mechanics themselves demonstrate that the technique is slower. In my opinion, slower is inferior.
Again, the technique may or may not be slower. That is a factor of several other issues that go beyond the chamber condition. But fair enough, your opinion is noted. However, speed is again not the only factor, nor is it even the main factor to some.
Again, just because Fairbairn, Cooper, the IDF or USMC used the method bears no relevance on its efficiency.
You are going to have to define efficiency then. I think a proven history of succes does indicate efficiency, and something inefficient would not be practiced, promulgated, and popular among such a diverse population. It may not indicate maximum efficiency, but rarely is maximum efficiency needed. One might be able to make a point about the autoloader being more efficient than the revolver. That in no way negates the effectiveness and the efficiency of the revolver.
You can prove it by using a timer.
You seem to be stuck on this speed thing. If speed is your main concern there are many other factors that impact the overall speed of the presentation. Second, should there be a difference in speed, one must also decide if that matters. The fraction of a second we are discussing here probably doesn't matter much, if at all.
Best case scenario is that the "israeli draw" is going to slow you down by about 2/10 or more.
OK, let's use that as an example. IF the technique slows you down by 2/10 second, here is what that means. Let's assume a standard drawstroke of 2.0 seconds. If the attack occurs within the 2.0 second or less time frame, you cannot draw so the time doesn't matter. If the attack occurs in the 2.2 seconds or greater time frame, you can chamber, so it doesn't matter. So the only way it matters (in this format) is if the attack occurs within a very specific and very narrow time frame. Consider that there are numerous other factors (type of holster, position of carry, clothing worn, etc.) that can impact the overall drawstroke time to a greater extent, yet that never seems to get as much attention.
As for accuracy, after you cycle the slide, your weak hand is chasing the pistol or you are going to fire strong hand only. Either way it is not going to be as accurate as a properly mounted pistol. Add the crouching which means that the body, head (eyes), arms, gun (sights) are moving and the upward swinging style draw stroke and you have a recipe for inaccuracy.
I'm sorry, but this might be the difference between watching a video and actually having some training in a technique. From personal experience I can assure you that this technique does not lack for speed or accuracy. Your pistol should be in a properly mounted position either way, and the accuracy should be the same, there is no difference in final firing position, aiming, etc. The draw stroke is no more of an upward swing than other drawstrokes commonly taught. In fact when I went to Thunder Ranch I found the drawstroke as taught by Clint to be very similar to the drawstroke used in the Israeli Method taught to me.
Nothing is more important than hitting your target quickly (preferably before being hit).
We'll have to disagree. While that might be the second most important thing in a gunfight to me, there are a lot of non-gunfight issues that can also be very important.
Also, no one I know is just going to fire one round and stop. I will fire no less than 3.
And no one who is properly trained in the Israeili Method will fire one round and stop either. Again, I think you are trying to condemn a long-estableished and well-proven method of fighting based on watching one small segment of one video that may or may not accurately present the issue. If I'm wrong and you do have experience and training in the system, my apologies in advance.

Lurper
February 8, 2007, 04:27 PM
Consider that there are numerous other factors (type of holster, position of carry, clothing worn, etc.) that can impact the overall drawstroke time to a greater extent, yet that never seems to get as much attention.

This is where the meat lies. When measuring a technique's effectiveness vs another technique, you have to use a level playing field. In this case you need to look at the technique from the moment the draw has begun. Nothing else is material in measuring the TECHNIQUE. As I mentioned previously, the mindset is the most important factor for a "gunfight", but we aren't talking about a gunfight. We are talking about the value of one technique -vs- another. Using two people with the same skill level and equipment and drawing at the same time, the "israeli draw" is slower. No ifs ands or buts. So, using that measure the .2 seconds can make the difference between life and death, no matter how long the entire engagement lasted.

If the attack occurs within the 2.0 second or less time frame, you cannot draw so the time doesn't matter. If the attack occurs in the 2.2 seconds or greater time frame, you can chamber, so it doesn't matter.

A properly trained marksman can easily draw from concealment in well under 2seconds. Depending on which holster I am using, I can come close to sub 1 second hits at 10 yards (with my competition rig, well under 1 second). So, the .2 does make a huge difference. If you take a round in the breadbasket before your hammer drops, your effectiveness has been diminished. Take one that disrupts the CNS and it's all over. Add the ability to achieve sub .2 splits and you risk being hit twice before your first round is fired. Again, we aren't talking tactics, avoidance, skill disparity or equipment differences. We are talking two people of equal skill beginning their draw at the same time. That is the only accurate way to measure the effectiveness of a technique.

Also, no matter what the situation, tactics or equipment by being the first to hit your target you greatly increase your chance of survival.The only sure way to mitigate a threat is to remove it - permanenty!

As far as training goes, I have had more training than most people. I have been taught by some of the greatest names in shooting. I was a top competitor for several years (sponsored by several big companies), have been an instructor for many years and consultant to Law Enforcement and military units. So, I have the credentials to qualify my statements, I'm not some internet ninja just spouting off based on watching a video.

David Armstrong
February 9, 2007, 01:23 PM
This is where the meat lies. When measuring a technique's effectiveness vs another technique, you have to use a level playing field.
Only if the level playing field is pertinent. In this case, it isn't as the issue can be addressed from several different points. The situation determines the need, the need defines the effectiveness. I can set up a playing field where the chamber empty carry is more effective than chamber loaded FOR THAT PARTICULAR SITUATION.
A properly trained marksman can easily draw from concealment in well under 2seconds.
Irrelevant, as most people are not properly trained marksmen, and the 2-second time was for example only, just as the 2/10 second to chamber a round is for example only. No matter what the normal timeframe for the presentation, the entire issue becomes important only if the event occurs in the boundaries defined by that tiny fraction of a second, no matter what the times are.
We are talking two people of equal skill beginning their draw at the same time. That is the only accurate way to measure the effectiveness of a technique.
We'll disagree. That may be the only way you can accurately measure the effectiveness of a technique, but it certainly isn't the only way to do so, and it is certainly not the way I would do so. I tend to discuss effectiveness based on how well something does what it is supposed to do in the real world. Using that criteria the chamber empty technique is quite effective. History and experience have shown us that.
As far as training goes, I have had more training than most people.
So have I. The question is not if you have had any training, but if your training is relevant. So, how much training have you had in the Israeli method?

Lurper
February 9, 2007, 08:45 PM
History shows us nothing if not the folly of holding on to prior beliefs once held sacred that fly in the face of new information - ask Columbus. While Fairbairn et al. made a timely contribution to combat pistolcraft, their techniques are not the be all to end all. Just because they use it bears no relevance to effectiveness. Organizational doctrine sometimes (in the case of the government - always) dictates requirements that are less than ideal or effective. This is the case with carrying an empty chamber and the "israeli draw."

Sure if you pitted someone who was thoroughly trained in the "israeli draw" against a novice with a pistol the expert will prevail. But, not because of technique but because of competency.

Your statements are belief based. Mine are provable and repeatable. C & L is faster than the "israeli draw" every time hands down. More specifically, a person carrying C&L will be able to hit a target faster than if they used the "israeli draw". That is provable and undisputable. Whether you choose to believe that is a personal choice, many continued to believe the world was flat in spite of proof otherwise. Any factor that occurs before the draw is in the realm of tactics, not technique.

I always assume the person I am confronting is at least as skilled as I am. Therefore .2 seconds is important. A well trained marksman will hit the target twice in that time span. I won't risk taking two rounds just to feel a false sense of "safety" by carrying an empty chamber (if my unit doctrine dictates that carry, then I have no choice). Having BTDT on several occasions and based on the experience of many of my LEO friends, being able to hit the target quickly is the most important factor. Whether you want to make that your prime criteria is up to you.

I was trained in the "israeli draw" by some SAS guys back in the '80's, so I have some experience with the technique. I would also argue that the millions of rounds I have fired C&L are relevant. One doesn't have to become an expert in every technique to be able to determine relative effectiveness.

At this point, I will no longer beat this dead horse. The argument has crossed the line from fact to belief and like politics, abortion, religion and gun control once you argue beliefs the debate gets ugly.

M1911
February 9, 2007, 09:02 PM
C & L is faster than the "israeli draw" every time hands down.+1

Take a look at the professional competition shooters. Todd Jarrett, Rob Leatham, Doug Koenig, et. al., would wear pink tutus and toe shoes if it made them shoot faster. If "israeli draw" was faster, they'd be using it. They will do whatever it takes to win.

They don't use "israeli draw." Not a single one of them. Why? Because it is slower.

sasman
February 9, 2007, 09:56 PM
Why not just carry a Sig DAK loaded and ready...this is my solution.Pull trigger=shoots No trigger pull= no shoot. Simple. I know ..I know the 1911 is more battle tested. So is the canonball.

Chindo18Z
February 9, 2007, 10:39 PM
Wow. It's hard to believe this thread is still going strong.

Let's see if I can summarize what I've learned (or already knew):

No major modern major military force uses this technique. Including (the last time I was around them), the active Israeli force. Can't speak to current Israeli Reservist practices.

No modern LEO agencies use this technique.

No successful competitive shooters use this technique.

No successful major civilian training schools recommend this technique.

No government or private contractor Personal Security Details use this technique.

No US military Special Operations forces (nor any foreign ones that I've worked with) use this technique. Although the occasional cherry asks the question...

There appears to be no paying market demand for this technique at shooting schools since the 1980s.

Folks who are apprehensive about SA Condition One Carry or loaded Glocks appear to like it.

There is a guy named Bob (who bought the Israeli VHS tape out of the discount holster bin) who swears by it.

According to its proponets, against a stopwatch, I should be able to chug an unopened can of beer quicker than someone can chug an already opened one...

I should release a training DVD advocating a one-handed, bladed-body duellist stance; there is bound to be an untapped retro-tactical market (as long as I wear a WWI Imperial German Army Uniform in the video).

Hmmmnn...

Daves-got-guns
February 10, 2007, 08:26 AM
alittle off topic, but how can ANYBODY compare the classic 1911 .45 automatic pistol to a effin cannonball? If its soo outdated how come specialist guys shoot em? I could of swore tacomas s.w.a.t still packs a 1911, but i could be wrong. If its soo old school how come alot of the top b.a shooters still shoot em too? I dont know alot about this israeli army draw business, i just carry a gun in a way i figure i can shoot it best. Be it single action revolver with 5 in the wheel, or double action de-cock safety set to safe with 1 in the chamber. Only person i know who takes "firearms are always loaded" attitude to the max is my mom, who carries her bersa with a empty chamber and the safety on. Also one day, i think shortly after my father got done messing with the gun, it somehow automaticly loaded 1 in the chamber.I do not carry a gun for personal defense, i really need to but i also really need to be 21. Instead of carrying a pistol for defense, i usually like to carry a really high level of sitianal awareness when im walking around town or in the car or in a bad place in general.

David Armstrong
February 10, 2007, 04:52 PM
History shows us nothing if not the folly of holding on to prior beliefs once held sacred that fly in the face of new information - ask Columbus.
First, Columbus was working from a well-known set of facts recognized by most learned men at the time. His error was in how he interpreted those facts. But history also can show us the folly of discarding something that is perfectly acceptable in search of the newest and greatest. But I'm not sure anyone here is hanging on to any prior beliefs, sacred or not. Nobody has said that chamber empty is always better, or that it should always be used, or anything like that. What has been said is that for certain people, in certain situations, it may provide a more effective option for them than chamber loaded.
While Fairbairn et al. made a timely contribution to combat pistolcraft, their techniques are not the be all to end all.
Again, I'm not aware of anybody making such a claim. The claim is that just because new techniques have been developed it does not automatically negate the use of older techniques.
Just because they use it bears no relevance to effectiveness.
In and of itself, no. But when you take that use and examine it, there can be some relevance to decisions as to effectiveness. If something has been used successfully on a regular basis, one can assume it to be reasonably effective at accomplishing the prescribed goal.
Your statements are belief based.
I'll have to call you on that one. AFAIK, each of my statements pertinent to this issue are fact based. In fact, I'd appreciate it if you could show me such a belief based statement regarding the technique and its use.
C & L is faster than the "israeli draw" every time hands down.
As I have said so many times before, though, speed is not the only concern here. There are other factors to consider than speed, and even if there is a speed difference it is rarely of any significance in real-world DGU incidents.
More specifically, a person carrying C&L will be able to hit a target faster than if they used the "israeli draw". That is provable and undisputable.
Having trained in the method, and having trained and tested many others, I will dispute it as I have seen it not to be true too many times. Yes, for most people with most guns it is an accurate statement., but there are way to many variables that enter into that to consider it an absolute.
A well trained marksman will hit the target twice in that time span.
And again, only if the event is framed in that tiny fraction of a second will that matter at all, and there are so many other factors that come into play in the real world that the fraction of a second becomes virtually irrelevant. And while I agree that it is good advice to assume your opponent will be as well- trained as you are (it is advice I give to others myself) it is also a fact that the overwhelming majority of gun owners and users are not well-trained, if they are trained at all, and that is something that must be taken into consideration, and thta is something that must be considered when discussing the relative effectiveness of a technique.
Having BTDT on several occasions and based on the experience of many of my LEO friends, being able to hit the target quickly is the most important factor. Whether you want to make that your prime criteria is up to you.
Also having BTDT quite a bit myself, I'd disagree. To me the most important factor is not to get hit yourself. Then we can worry about hitting the BG. But that is a belief issue, and I won't say you are wrong for selecting your criteria as you do. I would suggest you are wrong for apparently suggesting that is the only criteria that everyone should consider the most important all the time, however.
I was trained in the "israeli draw" by some SAS guys back in the '80's, so I have some experience with the technique.
OK, that should prove my point right there. Why was the SAS using that technique? Because it was best suited for them in their particular situation. And apparently they felt it good enough (effective) that they would train others in its use.
I would also argue that the millions of rounds I have fired C&L are relevant.
I agree. BTW, how many rounds did you fire using the other technique, just for comparison? Lots of folks don't carry C&L, they carry first shot DA, with a DA/SA set-up. That is a variable that can entrer into the equation, along with all those other things to consider that go far beyond how fast someone can speed-draw.

David Armstrong
February 10, 2007, 04:57 PM
Take a look at the professional competition shooters.
Why? What value will that have to this issue? I think that ia the biggest problem whenever this issue comes up. Why don't we look at real-world, reality-based, DGU incidents? Why don't we look at whether or not a fighting technique has proven a success in actual fights? It seems very few want to address the topic from "common citizen self defense" and instead want to rely on artificial competition and theoretical constructs.

David Armstrong
February 10, 2007, 05:21 PM
I think things are starting to get wildly off-topic here, but I think this post, though somewhat tongue-in-cheek, is apropos of the what is tossed around most of the time when people want to argue against chamber empty/Israeli Method techniques:
No major modern major military force uses this technique. Including (the last time I was around them), the active Israeli force. Can't speak to current Israeli Reservist practices.
Both wrong and irrelevant.
No modern LEO agencies use this technique.
Again, both wrong and irrelevant.
No successful competitive shooters use this technique.
Irrelevant.
No successful major civilian training schools recommend this technique.
Depends on how you define major, but there are at least a couple of successful civilian training schools in the U.S. that recommend the technique, as well as several overseas.
No government or private contractor Personal Security Details use this technique.
Wrong and irrelevant.
No US military Special Operations forces (nor any foreign ones that I've worked with) use this technique. Although the occasional cherry asks the question...
I think the key there is the restriction to those you have worked with, as there are those that do use the technique. Again, though, it is somewhat irrelevant.
There appears to be no paying market demand for this technique at shooting schools since the 1980s.
Wrong. Also irrelevant, as I fail to see how demand has anything to do with the issue. There is a paying market demand for Cowboy Shooting, but I don't think anyone would advocate it for personal defense in general (although I have had some students who did uses the SA revolver as a defeensive firearm).
Folks who are apprehensive about SA Condition One Carry or loaded Glocks appear to like it.
As do many others who are not apprehensive and/or carry other weapons.
There is a guy named Bob (who bought the Israeli VHS tape out of the discount holster bin) who swears by it.
Could be true, and he would be in good company.
According to its proponets, against a stopwatch, I should be able to chug an unopened can of beer quicker than someone can chug an already opened one...
Beer chugging is fairly irrelevant, and perhaps you could identify any of its proponents who have suggested that.
I should release a training DVD advocating a one-handed, bladed-body duellist stance; there is bound to be an untapped retro-tactical market (as long as I wear a WWI Imperial German Army Uniform in the video).
Perhaps so, but again irrelevant.

So what we have is the usual: a series of arguments that are not true or are of no relevance to a discussion of whether or not the technique still has a place in the modern world of self-defense. Again, I don't say everyone should use it, nor do I say most people should use it. I, and others, take umbrage at those who claim it has no use, and no one should ever use it.

Chindo18Z
February 10, 2007, 06:58 PM
David Armstrong: My post was intended to be somewhat tongue-in-cheek.

If you would be so kind as to refute my points without a subjective "...wrong and irrelevant...", I'll entertain serious consideration for your conclusions.

Please feel free to name some folks or agencies from my list (besides mythical Bob) who think this form of carry is a good idea. The chances will be very good that I've instructed them, been instructed by them, or served in combat with them. We can compare notes 'cause I'm willing to learn.

The beer-chugging reference was a comparative analogy. The more motor skill movements required, the greater propensity for failure at all levels. You will be slower to draw, present, aquire target, and fire. You will also be more likely to fumble presentation and grip under stress. And although the statistical probability of two equally armed opponents conducting a simultaneous quick draw are very low, there is a very high probability that trouble requiring a pistol will erupt close to (if not inside) your personal zone. Try the foolishess you recommend and you will be owned by your opponent.

On balance, I believe that you are simply advocating a really good way to die. I know that you don't believe that, so we'll just have to disagree.

Charles S
February 10, 2007, 08:47 PM
I honestly cannot believe that this argument has continued.

If you advocate the Israeli Army Draw here are my thoughts.

Situational awareness is the most critical single factor in a self defense situation.

Speed is also essential in a self defense situation.

The Israeli Army Draw is slower than cocked and locked. That is an irrefutable fact. If you are willing to give up that speed for an unproven outdated mode of carry that is fine, just don't try to convince any reasonable person that that is the best mode of carry.

If you are unwilling to carry cocked and locked with a round in the chamber than get a different gun.

If you are unwilling to carry a traditional double action, a safe action, or a double action only autoloader with a round in the chamber then carry a revolver.

If you are unwilling to carry a revolver with a round under the hammer, they you are indeed foolish.

If you are inadequately trained (you do have training don't you) to carry a gun safely with a round in the chamber then seek additional training and you do not need to carry a gun before completing that training.

Just don't try to convince any trained, proficient, intelligent person that the Israeli Army Draw method is an acceptable method of carry, it has numerous problems.

It is slow. It has deficiencies in close combat situations, it is deficient in confined quarters, and it requires two hands for the most optimum level of proficiency and one cannot guaranty that two hands will be available (I realize in can be done with one hand, you are welcome to show me with someone shooting at you).

When you shot at your last course of instruction using the Israeli Army Draw how did you do? You have trained with this system, have you not? I don't believe so or you would not advocate it.

One last point. Go shoot any quality course LFI, Gunsite, Thunder Ranch etc and let us know how Israeli Army Draw fares in those classes. If you cannot do it in a controlled situation such as a quality gun course what makes you think you can do it in a gunfight.

Daves-got-guns
February 11, 2007, 12:02 PM
If you are unwilling to carry a revolver with a round under the hammer, they you are indeed foolish. What about ole thumb buster six guns with a fixed firing pin? Still i see some merrit in not carrying a round in the chamber of SOME guns some of the time. Like a pocket glock, or any pocket striker fired plastic gun in the actual pocket. I would carry unloaded chamber, but other then that ready to go. Just not much for a nd, havent had one yet and hope i never do. With a proper holster, i would be fine carrying these striker fired pistols 1 in the chamber and magazine topped off. Also anybody who carries a modern double action revolver with a empty chamber under the hammer is a tard-plain and simple.

Charles S
February 11, 2007, 12:28 PM
What about ole thumb buster six guns with a fixed firing pin?

The revolver comment assumed everyone chooses to carry a modern revolver.

My comment above still applies, just with a different twist. The only reason to carry an older gun without a hammer safety is because it is your only gun and the situation is dire, otherwise if you choose to carry an outmoded revolver you are indeed foolish (I use foolish for the safe of the board, there are other words I would prefer to insert).

Still i see some merrit in not carrying a round in the chamber of SOME guns some of the time. Like a pocket glock, or any pocket striker fired plastic gun in the actual pocket. I would carry unloaded chamber, but other then that ready to go.

Then in my opinion carry a different gun or get a pocket holster,and get more training.

I would not carry a Glock in my pocket without a holster. I would not carry a gun if I was only comfortable with condition three.

I stand by the opinion that carrying a gun in condition three is foolish for the reasons stated in my previous post.

Again.

One last point. Go shoot any quality course LFI, Gunsite, Thunder Ranch etc and let us know how Israeli Army Draw fares in those classes. If you cannot do it in a controlled situation such as a quality gun course what makes you think you can do it in a gunfight.

Go shoot a course from condition three and let us know how it turns out for you.

Deaf Smith
February 11, 2007, 08:01 PM
David Armstrong: My post was intended to be somewhat tongue-in-cheek.

If you would be so kind as to refute my points without a subjective "...wrong and irrelevant...", I'll entertain serious consideration for your conclusions.

Please feel free to name some folks or agencies from my list (besides mythical Bob) who think this form of carry is a good idea. The chances will be very good that I've instructed them, been instructed by them, or served in combat with them. We can compare notes 'cause I'm willing to learn.

The beer-chugging reference was a comparative analogy. The more motor skill movements required, the greater propensity for failure at all levels. You will be slower to draw, present, aquire target, and fire. You will also be more likely to fumble presentation and grip under stress. And although the statistical probability of two equally armed opponents conducting a simultaneous quick draw are very low, there is a very high probability that trouble requiring a pistol will erupt close to (if not inside) your personal zone. Try the foolishess you recommend and you will be owned by your opponent.

On balance, I believe that you are simply advocating a really good way to die. I know that you don't believe that, so we'll just have to disagree.

Chindo,

Don't expect david to give references. That ain't his style. He will say for you to research it cause he ain't gonna do it for you (shorthand for saying he has no proof at all.) His idea of carry is a .25 cuase stats show most BGs are scared off by a display of any gun, and thus a .25 is fine and dandy.

About the only ones using chamber empty is the U.S. military, but then they requre magzine empty to.

Capt Charlie
February 11, 2007, 09:18 PM
Ya know, the one thing on these forums that seems as consistent as the sun rising in the East, is that once sides become polarized in a debate, the shots stop being fired at the issues and the debaters become the target.

Those kinds of shots do damage, regardless if fired from Condition 1 or Condition 3 ;) . Nothing really new has been added to this thread for some time, but some of the insults have grown quite imaginative.

Time to close this one, methinks.