PDA

View Full Version : Israeli carry effective ?


alizeefan
November 29, 2007, 07:12 AM
I am due to start work with a new employer on monday but I have just been made aware of the fact that their company policy is magazine in gun but empty chamber :eek:( isn't political correctness wonderful:mad: ). I realize that most people, including myself, believe the proper way to carry is chamber " occupied " but, given this is not going to happen, is the so called israeli method of racking the slide on the draw a viable solution in a real world incident. I must confess I am 99% sure I won't be turning up for work.

Don P
November 29, 2007, 07:16 AM
Where are you going to be working that you are so sure you will not show up for work? Type of job, level of perceived danger. Just curious. :cool:

GalilARM
November 29, 2007, 07:23 AM
are you a tactical marketplace enforcer?


really though....What type of gun are you carrying? Some guns you could have a round chambered and the gun would look no different than if the pipe was empty. Im not advocating you getting fired or anything, but that sounds like a dumb rule that doesnt need to be followed.

alizeefan
November 29, 2007, 07:28 AM
The position is uniformed security mostly providing protection for atm technicians but also alarm responses. Obviously this involves access to considerable cash sums in both bank and off site atm's ( some of which are contained in " bunkers " ) where offenders in the past have been known to gain access through the roof and waiting patiently for security to turn up and disarm alarm and open the safe for them. To my mind it is the obviously " ambush " type attack that cash work tends to involve which means that if I am to have any chance I need a loaded gun. So far as it being a rule I can sort of ignore I should have mentioned this is in australia where if you don't sign your weapon out/in properly you can be charged and fined $10000 personally and the owner $40000 per offence and you can't do force on force even with airsoft as under WA law they are firearms and you cannot point a firearm at another person other than protection of self or other.

Don P
November 29, 2007, 07:33 AM
When you arrive on the scene why not rack the slide loading the pipe so you are ready and when leaving empty the pipe. Sounds like the company may have had a shooting or possible ND/AD in the past and this is why the empty chamber rule. Just my .02:cool:

GalilARM
November 29, 2007, 07:43 AM
Id say as long as you sign your weapon in and out properly, you should be okay to do whatever you want with it in the in-between time. Chamber a round. I'm sure your boss is just covering his ass. Is this a law that says no loaded chamber? Or just company policy? If its a law thats one thing, but if its just a rule your boss made up then......Again, did you say what kind of gun it is? I bet if you could get a double/single action pistol you could talk your boss into letting you keep it saftied with the hammer down on a loaded chamber. Its sad, but if someone was desperate enough, youd probably be the first target. If your boss wont let you carry with one in the pipe, he probably doesnt have much concern for your safety. I dont know how easy this is for you to do, but consider getting a job with a different agency if he continues to not allow you to take maximum measures for self defense.

alizeefan
November 29, 2007, 07:49 AM
22-Mag : I appreciate the suggestion but Australia is so hysterically anti gun that if a member of the public or even the technician i'm guarding see's this and reports me it will be instant dismissal and if the cops find out I can be charged with " going armed in public to create fear or distress " or some B.S like that. I have been in the industry for a decade and take pride in my abilities and study through books and dvd's the work of kelly mccann, andy stanford, clint smith etc who most people in australia have never heard of. I know you guys have a battle with your anti's but being able to simply OWN a semi auto let alone be allowed to carry it for self defense is pure fantasy here. I am very envious and am actually trying to convince the wife to emigrate to the US, the only free country left. galilARM: sorry, we are being issued glocks in either .40 ( as with previous employer ) or 9mm. Just for a bit of useless info this is such a police state that the police decide your issue make. Security officers can only use glock auto pistols or I believe S&W revolvers. You are correct in that it is company policy and not law but the removal of pistol to load chamber if not for "real" probably constitutes a crime.

GalilARM
November 29, 2007, 07:51 AM
Oh wow they give you a .22 mag to defend yourself with? And you cant chamber a round? Thats BS my friend, sorry youre gettin screwed like that. If the law is that against loaded guns then I'd say just suck it up and carry Israeli. Just be extra vigilant and aware of your surroundings, otherwise you make a good victim.

The good ol US of A....you can keep a pistol in your pocket, an AK in your truck, and a shotgun under the bed......here we are complaining that we cant buy full autos whenever we want. Sounds like we've got it easy.

Stay safe mate

Don P
November 29, 2007, 07:55 AM
i here ya on down under. It truely SUCKS!. I work for a armored car company here and we to, have to deal with state and company policies. We recently had 2 ATM techs shot and killed in the Philly, Pa. area. They unfortuneately chose not ot wear there vests that day and and they paid the ultilmit price:cool:

alizeefan
November 29, 2007, 08:02 AM
Vest's ? What are they :D . I bet you can see were i'm going with this, you guessed it, there illegal outside police or criminals :mad:.

Don P
November 29, 2007, 08:02 AM
GalilARM, he was answering me by my name 22-mag, not what they expect him to carry:cool:

Don P
November 29, 2007, 08:05 AM
I take it armed guards are not permitted to own or use body armor.:eek: That totaly sucks.:barf: We are STRONGLY encouraged to buy and wear body armor and the company even puts $100 bucks toward our vest. As hot as it gets and UNcomfy they can be I wear mine.:eek:

GalilARM
November 29, 2007, 08:11 AM
hahahaha oh wow oops. Its 7am here and I've been up ALL night working on a research paper.

I cant believe I didnt catch that. In one ear and out the other I guess. JFK style.

Ok time for bed. Wait, now I have to go to class.....:mad:

alizeefan
November 29, 2007, 08:12 AM
There was talk about trying to introduce vests following a gaurd being killed in sydney a couple of years ago but it seems to have gone by the wayside amd if they were issued they would have to be an issued item not something a security officer could own. after all, the police here don't wear vest's as a matter of course but carry them in the boot (sorry that's trunk to you guys :D ) and retrieve them if the need arises.

Don P
November 29, 2007, 08:17 AM
Stupidity should hurt!. I realize your gun laws are so different and basicly banned ownership be the general public, but keeping a vest in the boot and puting it on when THEY think they may need it?:eek: A real good way to wind up dead. I'm quite sure the criminals did NOT surrender there guns as did the law bideing people.:cool:

alizeefan
November 29, 2007, 08:29 AM
You are right on the money. The incredible thing that I just can't get my head around is that it seems the people in this country don't WANT the right to self defense. This goes way beyond the gun issue as if you keep a baseball bat next to your bed (like I do) because home invasions are a daily occurence for obvious reasons ( helpless victims ) you will be prosecuted because by having the bat there you showed PRE-MEDITATION to commit an attack :mad:. This is not your pro gun rhetoric but actual fact and has happened over and over again. The ridiculous laws don't surprise me ( they just **** me off ) but the general acceptance by the public astounds me.

Don P
November 29, 2007, 08:36 AM
Grab the wife pack a bag. Ther's plenty of room up here in the states. It amazes me that way back when the Brits sent all the UNWANTED to the new world and did the same down under. I guess we could call it there peinal colonies. Tuff choice trying to leave what we call our home land. 15 years ago I spent 6 months in Europe, mostly in England and as nice as it was there and in all the places I stayed and visited I could not see me staying and not returning to the states. Guess I'm saying I couldn't make the move:cool:

Silvanus
November 29, 2007, 08:42 AM
If you train a lot, you can draw, rack the slide and point the gun really fast. Not as fast as with a round in the chamber, of course, but still fast enough for most situations. I wanted to suggest cocking the hammer, so the slide will be easier to operate...with a Glock that's impossible though:(

alizeefan
November 29, 2007, 08:57 AM
Believe me mate I am really trying to convince her, plus I hear Florida is quite nice :) you also have that no retreat thing in your laws regarding defending yourself in your home ;). Yep, sounds like a mighty fine place to spend the rest of my days. As far as training racking the slide that's going to be interesting. We apparently are going to do quarterly requals ( although the law only requires 2 per year ) but I could almost gaurentee it will be chambered round, draw and fire for requals just not on the street making the situation worse because your training one method and carrying another. It has to be remembered that as I can't buy my own glock 17 or 23 to practice with the only shooting I will now get is my requals

Crimp
November 29, 2007, 09:05 AM
How about using a revolver?

alizeefan
November 29, 2007, 09:13 AM
That would definately solve the problem but the company has gone done the glock path and i'm stuck with it ( I love the glock incidently ). By law you can only carry a company firearm and that tends to be glock. This is because no one imports revolvers to any great degree anymore. Most police forces here have gone to glock and competition shooters use the few remaining auto's that are still legal. All old police revolver stocks were either destroyed or sold off overseas so parts for those companies still issueing model 10 revolvers are difficult to come by.

Spade Cooley
November 29, 2007, 09:59 AM
Carry it ready to rock and roll. If you get into a situation and use it and the company finds out about it, just say, oops!

markj
November 29, 2007, 10:35 AM
plus I hear Florida is quite nice

aw come on now, everyone knows Iowa is best for all living. Best hunting, easy CC laws, low taxes. Lots of country type homes, everyone here is friendly. FLA gets hot like 9 months out of the year, i have damily there, they tell me it gets so humid and hot they stay inside and run the A/C unit 9 months out of the year.... We wear coats here, easy to CC a .45 semi :)

Night Watch
November 29, 2007, 12:51 PM
:rolleyes: Well, if everyone is finished crying in their beer, may we move on to some sort of relevant discussion?

Exactly what is the problem, here? I've carried a G-21 in C-3 for the past 5 years. During practice sessions I always draw and fire using a Mossad draw. I do dozens of practice Mossad draws every week. Before I start any range session I'll empty a magazine full of A-Zoom snap caps from Mossad; and, thereafter, I switch to live rounds and do the same thing all over again.

Mossad ain't slow; it isn't inaccurate. The last guy I had to pull a pistol on didn't even get to clear his belt before he realized that if he didn't instantly freeze he was going to get double-tapped out of his shoes. When properly executed a Mossad draw can be completed in, something less than, 1.5 seconds. (That's from the holster, to squaring up the back of the slide, and firing the first two rounds.)

There is only one real disadvantage to a Mossad draw: You (usually) need to use two hands - That's it, period! The entire nation of Israel carries in C-3 and uses a Mossad draw. The British Secret Services and SAS, also, did exactly the same thing for decades.

For anyone to say that he isn't going to take a job because he can't live with the inconvenience and presumed danger of a Mossad draw from C-3 is just plain silly. What such a person is really saying is that he doesn't know how to handle himself in a CQB gunfight.

Sorry, hope I haven't hurt anyone's feelings; but, I thought these things need to be said. You approach and withdraw from the target zone in, 'Condition Yellow'. If, for any reason, you are alarmed then you should immediately go into, 'Condition Orange'. At this point, your pistol should already be out and fully charged; and you should, also, be looking for available cover.

Can you protect yourself from someone with a sawed-off shotgun who suddenly jumps out in front of you and sticks the shotgun in your face? No, you can't; and it doesn't matter how or what you're carrying if that should happen. There's, also, no adequate pistol defense against a rifleman who chooses to snipe you from 80 meters out. Chambered or unchambered carry isn't going to do you any good in either of these situations.

The greatest liabilities I see in the OP's comments are, (1) Not being allowed to practice, and (2) not being allowed to wear a bullet-resistant vest. If I were to decide NOT to take a security job in assbackwards Australia, it would be, principally, because of these two reasons and nothing else. ;)

obxned
November 29, 2007, 02:06 PM
Sending you out there with an empty chamber? I sure hope the BGs don't come at you with one in the chamber and their guns drawn and aimed. That would be so unsporting.

Erik
November 29, 2007, 02:35 PM
"Israeli style" is a hold over from days gone by, and has been disavowed as viable weapons doctrine by most everyone. Anyone care to list the high speed low drag entities which rely on it circa today?

It is fine so long as you'll never need your support hand for something else, will never need to fire from #2 from the holster, will never need to fire immediately from the #3 while driving the gun forward, will never have an injury preventing the use of the support hand, will never fumble because of a variety of factors, and are willing to compromise speed for... for what exactly? Well, then go for it. The rest of us wish you well.

dwatts47
November 29, 2007, 02:42 PM
Can you chamber around with gun in the holster? Thus having a loaded gun , but avoiding the crime of having 'drawn' it.

EEL92fs
November 29, 2007, 03:05 PM
What holsters? do you have to use the company holsters or can you use something like this.

http://www.smartholster.com/howto.html

alizeefan
November 29, 2007, 05:11 PM
I have to agree to disagree:). As erik says your support hand may be injured or being used to fend ( remember we are not just talking about threats from guns but knife attacks at close range etc. ). Also , in terms of obtaining a solid firing grip as soon as possible, and therefore getting on sights early etc it simply is less efficient than carry chamber loaded. I am sure you practice a lot and are quite proficient but I can't practice enough to make it an automatic response.

ddelange
November 29, 2007, 07:03 PM
alizee,
This thread has spawned a lot of spin-off venting about the unfortunate firearms policy of your company (which is probably mandated by its insurance company) and the firearms laws of Australia. All of those issues are worthy of discussion, but not to the ultimate decision you have to make: does the compensation you will receive outweigh the consequences you will face as a security guard forced to carry C-3 and not allowed to wear body armor.
At the security firm I serve as legal counsel (among other duties) for we require all security officers to carry chamber loaded with a reliable pistol between 9mm and .45 of the security officer's choice. We also give a significant reimbursement for body armor to the officer after he successfully completes his preliminary term of employment.
I just had to pipe in and also emphasize that you are facing a very difficult and personal decision that only you can make. In the States, our Security Officers and LEO's are still tragically underpaid - I can only guess that the situation is the same or worse in Australia.
Do you think you would have the adequate operational tools and training to face the risks of the job?
Good luck, ALD

alizeefan
November 29, 2007, 07:22 PM
alizee,
This thread has spawned a lot of spin-off venting about the unfortunate firearms policy of your company (which is probably mandated by its insurance company) and the firearms laws of Australia. All of those issues are worthy of discussion, but not to the ultimate decision you have to make: You are right sir, we have wandered off topic. My question was, given the full spectrum of possible threats, was this type of carry viable and the overwhelming view appears to be no. I believe in being as profesional as possible and I am NOT going to jepardise my safety for the sake of feel good politics. Excuse me gentlemen as I have to tell my new employer what I think of his B.S policy ;).

Perldog007
November 29, 2007, 07:51 PM
I can sympathize with the OP. While I have elected to use I.C. on occasion for my own reasons, it was never when I was guarding a bank or on a "money run".

IMHO a company that uses such a boneheaded policy is beneath contempt. To tell applicants about it means the baddies will find out about it too. Stupidity on stupidity.

Once I took a job with a pretty nifty looking outfit in Northern Va that required all officers to purchase a Glock .40 I opted for the 23 as I already had a ccw permit. (pretty kinky requirement for a company that doesn't supply the weapon in the private guard game)

I had qualified with a Beretta 96 and about a bazillion other handguns. - In Virginia you qual'd with caliber and action. The law then allowed you to carry any weapon of the action and caliber you qualified with.

When I showed up for work I was told to leave my gun in the car and walk my beat uniformed and unarmed until the company president saw me qualify with "his" Glock. My response was less than professional.


While I would back up the O.P. no matter how he handled the communication with the employer, hindsight indicates temperance. If you can.
I still think my guy was an unabashed :censored: but years later if I could do it over I would have been more professional.

orionengnr
November 29, 2007, 08:09 PM
Exactly what is the problem, here? I've carried a G-21 in C-3 for the past 5 years. During practice sessions I always draw and fire using a Mossad draw. I do dozens of practice Mossad draws every week. Before I start any range session I'll empty a magazine full of A-Zoom snap caps from Mossad; and, thereafter, I switch to live rounds and do the same thing all over again.

Did you fail to comprehend the part about him being unable to practice except for requal? :rolleyes: And then from C1, no draw and rack.

You do it every day of the week, perhaps many times? Great. Since he does not have the options you do, what you do is immaterial.

What he does, is allowed to do, and his likelihood of survival as a result, is the subject at hand.

To the OP--get out now; come on over. You already have plenty of friends here :)

David Armstrong
November 29, 2007, 08:24 PM
Nightwatch pretty well covered the high points, but I'll toss my $.02 in. Israeli Carry, despite all the naysayers, has a history of successful and effective use behind it, and despite all the hysteria about what might happen, in reality we just don't see it. Chamber empty carry of autoloaders was the dominant model of carry for most of the 20th Century around the world, and is still the preferred method of carry by a lot of people who have seen a lot of action in a lot of places. Is chamber loaded better? For most people, in most situations, yes, it probably is. But are you significantly handicapped with the Israeli method? No, you are not. The overall presentation time is not decreased to any significant degree in comparison to all sorts of other factors that nobody gets too worried about. The only really legit issue is the "one hand" problem, and that issue just doesn't seem to have been much of a factor over the last 100 years.

"Israeli style" is a hold over from days gone by, and has been disavowed as viable weapons doctrine by most everyone. Anyone care to list the high speed low drag entities which rely on it circa today?
I'd suggest that rather than "who uses it today" the better question is "who has successfully used it in the past?" Given the huge number of agencies and entities who have done just that (and some still do), it seems questionable to deride the concept as bad.

alizeefan
November 29, 2007, 08:25 PM
To the OP--get out now; come on over. You already have plenty of friends here Fill the fridge with fosters and load the magazines, I'm on my way ;).

Chindo18Z
November 29, 2007, 10:40 PM
David Armstrong: I'd suggest that rather than "who uses it today" the better question is "who has successfully used it in the past?" Given the huge number of agencies and entities who have done just that (and some still do), it seems questionable to deride the concept as bad.

Who are some of the agencies/entities who either did use or continue to use the Israeli method?

Night Watch: The entire nation of Israel carries in C-3 and uses a Mossad draw. The British Secret Services and SAS, also, did exactly the same thing for decades.

I'm intrigued. When did the UK SAS use this method?

Night Watch
November 29, 2007, 11:54 PM
Erik,

Your comments seem to reflect more of a gamesman’s mentality than the carefully acquired conclusions of a genuine pistolero. Please don’t take offense, though. This is, after all, the internet; and that’s OK! ;)


Alizeefan,

In my opinion, you should be more careful about basing all your conclusions on what the majority thinks. (Remember what Socrates said about popular opinions?) While I suspect you have more than one reason for not accepting this position, I'll hang in there with you for awhile longer.

Apparently, you’ve never kicked a man off you in CQB? (Not even in HTH practice?) There are 4 different ways that I know of to rack a slide with one hand: off the edge of your belt, off your thigh, from under your arm, or from between your knees; however, as David Armstrong has sagely pointed out, the Mossad draw does NOT have a history of disadvantaging anyone in CQB; and, such ancillary one-handed techniques have been, at best, rarely needed.

On another one of your points, I’m just going to have to ask you to take my word for it: Neither my grip, nor my aim, has ever been hindered by the use of a Mossad draw. The final stage of the Mossad draw does, in fact, drive the pistol into the target – Sometimes while using unsighted fire, too.

I’m not saying - nor do I mean to imply - that unchambered carry is a superior method of engagement. It is not! However unchambered carry offers advantages to: my family, myself, and to my neighbors as well that I find more useful than being constantly locked and loaded.

In the past 5 years I’ve had to draw a pistol from Mossad, exactly once, during a hostile confrontation. On the other hand, there have been many hundreds of times when others around me might have been placed at risk by my fully-charged pistol. (Including several other gunmen with less than perfect weapon handling skills.)


Orionengnr,

Yup, looks like there’s a problem all right! Yes, I got the message the first time around. That’s why I pointed out the usefulness of snap caps and regular dry fire practice to the OP. The fact that I’m heavily practiced should in no way reduce the usefulness of my opinion. I’ve offered that opinion for whatever insight it might produce. Admittedly I’ve expressed a minority viewpoint; but, you don’t really mind – Do you?

As far as, ‘survival potential’ goes, again, I thought I made my position clear; but, for the more obtuse, I’ll repeat myself: A Mossad carry requirement would, in no way, prevent me from taking that job. No vest? Yes! No regular live fire practice? Yes! But NOT Mossad carry. This wouldn’t stop me anymore than it’s stopped 100’s of 1,000’s of other gunmen from doing exactly the same thing; and, I might add, doing it well.


David Armstrong,

Thank you! As far as this gunman is concerned your reply was, ‘spot-on’!


For those who have more open minds and less of a tendency to rant, here, you might want to take a look at the following video. It illustrates several of the points I've attempted to make: (You’ll need QuickTime installed on your computer.)

http://defensereview.com/1_31_2004/kareen.mov


Chindo18Z,

The SAS’s use of unchambered carry has always been common knowledge to me. Why don’t you take the time to google it; I’m sure something will come up.

That's it! Thank you all for your time. :)

alizeefan
November 30, 2007, 12:26 AM
In my opinion, you should be more careful about basing all your conclusions on what the majority thinks. (Remember what Socrates said about popular opinions?) While I suspect you have more than one reason for not accepting this position, I'll hang in there with you for awhile longer. While i'm not sold on israeli carry, particularly when fending off knife armed offender ( a BIG possibility here ), I must admit my misgivings probably have more to do with not being able to train enough more than the type of carry. BTW that was an interesting video- thought provoking.

TexasSeaRay
November 30, 2007, 12:29 AM
Alizeefan,

I was working with some South American federales who carried old Smith & Wesson Model 10's with a hodgepodge of various ammo in the cylnder--basically whatever rounds they could get their hands on. One federale even had a couple of lead wad cutters in rotation with his lead SWCHP.

Being a "prestigious American federale" myself and much more impressed with my badge and importance than I ever had a right to be, I made some disparaging remark about them not even having the same ammunition in their unit, let alone in their guns.

One older cop just looked at me and remarked, "A dull knife will still cut better than no knife."

Point is, these guys were horribly underfunded and scrounged ammunition anywhere and anyway they could. I arranged for some Federal Hydrashok +P to be expedited to me and when I presented my federale friends with this gift, I had friends for life.

Sounds like you're in a similar situation. Faced with the prospect of carrying with an empty chamber or carrying with an empty holster, for me, the choice would be obvious.

What would concern me is the inability to become and then remain proficient and confident with the weapon you're expected to carry. THAT can get you hurt (or worse) a lot quicker and more often than having an empty chamber.

I agree with the others--COME TO THE U.S. Hell, immigrate to Teas and we'll feed you all the barbecue you can eat.

Jeff

Chindo18Z
November 30, 2007, 12:35 AM
Night Watch: Having trained with or served in combat zones with UK, AUS, and NZ SAS off and on since 1977 until present (Cold War, Gulf War, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq), I guess I must have missed the whole "common knowledge" thing...

Interestingly enough, when I was CQB trained by SAS Princess Gate assaulters (Iranian Embassy Raid, London) they forgot to mention the technique.

As you mentioned...it's just the Internet. Good luck with your next deadly encounter. :rolleyes:

alizeefan
November 30, 2007, 12:57 AM
What would concern me is the inability to become and then remain proficient and confident with the weapon you're expected to carry. THAT can get you hurt (or worse) a lot quicker and more often than having an empty chamber.

I agree with the others--COME TO THE U.S. Hell, immigrate to Teas and we'll feed you all the barbecue you can eat. Absolutely the major dilemma is lack of training rather than specific carry mode. I guess I just wanted a few thoughts from people who can train more and may have good things to say about israeli carry. BTW I think my wife's company has it's US base in Dallas so I'm crossing my fingers.Interestingly enough, when I was CQB trained by SAS Princess Gate assaulters (Iranian Embassy Raid, London) they forgot to mention the technique. That's +1 for me. I can't speak for UK sas but I live in Perth where australian sas are based and know a couple of them. They carry loaded chamber.

Night Watch
November 30, 2007, 01:39 AM
Chindo18Z,

OK, tough guy, then how come you don't know any better? ;)

JohnKSa
November 30, 2007, 01:41 AM
I'd say to make the best of what you have. It's not ideal, but it's not a disaster either.

Practice drawing and chambering a round so that it's second nature. It won't be as fast as a simple draw, but if you practice, you can get pretty fast. The key is that it needs to be a natural motion so you don't have to think about it.

Replace the rear sight with a steel sight having a profile that will allow you to rack the slide by catching the rear sight on your belt or the edge of your holster and pushing. Practice that technique until you can do it proficiently. If your other hand is wounded or occupied with something important you will need to be able to get your gun into action rapidly one-handed.

Don P
November 30, 2007, 07:35 AM
For JohnKSa, that is alizeefan main problem as he cannot have the weapon at home to practice. Unfortunate set of circumstances. As we all know practice will build speed and make one more confident in handling his weapon in a tense situation.:cool:

BPCustomShop
November 30, 2007, 08:50 AM
I have to agree with Night Watch. I carry C-3 all the time. I train with the Mossad draw all the time. I teach it to people who want to learn self-defense combat pistol shooting. Once learned and incorporated into your style, it's no slower than running loaded. That's my opinion, but my results back it up, too.

David Armstrong
November 30, 2007, 01:57 PM
Who are some of the agencies/entities who either did use or continue to use the Israeli method?
Let's start with a whole bunch of Israelis, who did, and still do. Toss in the U.S. military, who mandated chamber empty carry on handguns for most of the 20th Century, and still do so in many areas. The Russian police and military. The British South African Police. The Shanghai Police. The OSS. The SAS. Police all over Europe. Dozens, perhaps hundreds more.

The point is that for a long time, chamber empty was THE NORMAL WAY to carry autoloaders for EVERYONE, and is still the norm for lots of people and organizations.

I'm intrigued. When did the UK SAS use this method?
The ones I knew in the 1970's all carried BHPs with empty chambers. This was also the default for the Rhodesian SAS at the time.

jabotinsky
November 30, 2007, 03:23 PM
I’m not saying - nor do I mean to imply - that unchambered carry is a superior method of engagement. It is not! However unchambered carry offers advantages to: my family, myself, and to my neighbors as well that I find more useful than being constantly locked and loaded.

+1

Creature
November 30, 2007, 03:31 PM
This debate between "C-1 and C-3 carry: who does it and who doesn't" doesnt need to be a who's better debate. Who gives a rat's patooty what agencies carry in C-3? Most everyone here chooses C-1 as the preferred method of carry TODAY...because most present day firearms can be carried safely and effectively this way.

So, basically, it comes down to the company policy as described by the OP: if C-1 carry is unauthorized, then C-3 carry will have to do...alizeefan will just have to ensure that chambering a round with one hand is somehow practiced routinely.

JohnKSa
November 30, 2007, 10:04 PM
The point is that for a long time, chamber empty was THE NORMAL WAY to carry autoloaders for EVERYONE...There's a significant difference between the organizations you list and "EVERYONE". It was certainly more common in times past, particularly before the advent of firing pin safeties, but "EVERYONE" is definitely an overstatement.

BTW, you mentioned the Shanghai Police as an organization that advocated/practiced chamber empty carry. There's a little more to that story...That organization's trainers (Fairbairn & Sykes) were advocates of deactivating any and all safeties on a pistol. It is better, we think, to make the pistol permanently “unsafe” and then to devise such methods of handling it that there will be no accidents. One of the essentials of the instruction courses which follow is that the pistols used shall have their side safety-catches permanently pinned down in the firing or “unsafe” position.”I think that makes it a little more clear why they mandated chamber empty carry.

BillCA
December 1, 2007, 02:09 AM
According to an acquaintance who lives in Israel, their method of carry is mandated by Israeli law. Semi-auto pistols (the most common sidearm) are carred in C-3; Magazine inserted, chamber empty, safety off.

Three reasons exist for this policy.
1. Prevention of AD/ND's, especially in high density cities.
2. Muggings & robberies are surprisingly few (guns are open carry)
3. In the event of a shooting event, any unarmed Israeli can pick up the sidearm of an armed Israeli who is down, rack the slide and fire. He does not have to figure out the safety mechanism if he is unfamilar with the model. This policy works well, too.


I don't know beans about civil law in Oz, but you might be able to open some civil liability against the employer by sending a letter outlining the hazards of a guard carrying a money bag and trying to chamber a round when attacked. At the very least, he might spring for some Level II vests.

Lawyer Daggit
December 1, 2007, 03:33 AM
Anybody would think we have a major crime problem in Australia. (WE Don't )If you want to use this as an excuse for not working, fine, but I think an excuse is all that it is.

I would happily carry a pistol without a round in the chamber when undertaking that type of duty in Australia.

Most security guards doing ATM work in Sydney, Melbourne and Canberra (with which I am most familiar) work in teams of at least two people and still use revolvers anyway.

Given the lack of training given to most of these security guards I think it probably best that they have empty chambers anyway.

alizeefan
December 1, 2007, 04:03 AM
Anybody would think we have a major crime problem in Australia. (WE Don't )If you want to use this as an excuse for not working, fine, but I think an excuse is all that it is.

I would happily carry a pistol without a round in the chamber when undertaking that type of duty in Australia.

Most security guards doing ATM work in Sydney, Melbourne and Canberra (with which I am most familiar) work in teams of at least two people and still use revolvers anyway.

Given the lack of training given to most of these security guards I think it probably best that they have empty chambers anyway. your entire post is a massive generalization. We don't have a major crime problem in australia, I think the five guys from my previous company who were shot and killed would see it differently, and I just know your not lumping me in with the majority of the idiots that unfortunately do make up this industry. Your whole " don't worry it will never happen " attitude is exactly what is wrong with this industry and this country.

Creature
December 1, 2007, 07:56 AM
your entire post is a massive generalization. We don't have a major crime problem in australia, I think the five guys from my previous company who were shot and killed would see it differently, and I just know your not lumping me in with the majority of the idiots that unfortunately do make up this industry. Your whole " don't worry it will never happen " attitude is exactly what is wrong with this industry and this country.

Good points. US citizens should really think long and hard about the complacency of most people here in the US and our eroding constitutional rights.

Don P
December 1, 2007, 09:46 AM
alizeefan, as I stated early on when this first started, the company I work for Loomis had two employees shot and killed in the Philly, Pa. area. Both men were servicing a drive up ATM machine. Both men were retired Philly police officers. Both chose NOT to a vest that day, for what ever reason and paid the ultimate price for there choice. Other factors are being complacent in there duties and job. Our company is being hush hush on this because they feel it would be in poor taste to speake poorly of the dead. To a degree I diagree with this. Perhaps we could all learn a valueable lesson from the mistakes. Too many questions have been left UNANSWERED as to what and why it turned out the way it did. One I have is what was the driver doing? He is supposed to be watching and constantly scaning looking for potential problems is just one of the many Q&A's. I wear a level IIA which acording to the maker will stop a 357 round with some blunt trama. IMO unless it turns out to be a professional take down, the possible attempt will be with use of a hand gun and most likely a 9mm by a amature. The pros want the money and beat feet ASAP. This is all my opinion. If you take this job and if anything BE VIGILANT and do your best to stay in CODE YELLOW while at work.:cool:

alizeefan
December 1, 2007, 05:27 PM
Good points. US citizens should really think long and hard about the complacency of most people here in the US and our eroding constitutional rights. One thing is for sure, once government gains control of something it doesn't give it back.

David Armstrong
December 1, 2007, 06:01 PM
There's a significant difference between the organizations you list and "EVERYONE". It was certainly more common in times past, particularly before the advent of firing pin safeties, but "EVERYONE" is definitely an overstatement.
No more so than many other "every" type statements tossed around here on a regular basis. And of course one can also make the argument that given the sentence structure everyone in that context can be seen as a reference to organizations and not each individual human being in the world (ain't linguistics fun!:D).
There's a little more to that story.
Sure, there is always more to the story. More also includes bits that you left out, such as senoir officers that carried 1911s WITHOUT the pinned safeties also carried chamber empty, and that Fairbairn and Sykes model was also used in WWII with 1911s, BHPs, etc without the pinned safeties, and, as usual, nobody seems to have had much trouble with it.

Erik
December 1, 2007, 06:02 PM
Nightwatch,
No offense taken.

"Your comments seem to reflect more of a gamesman’s mentality than the carefully acquired conclusions of a genuine pistolero. Please don’t take offense, though. This is, after all, the internet; and that’s OK!"

I am not a gamesman. I carry, use, and instruct the use of firearms (among other options) for a living. My "been there done that" stories don't measure compared to some, certainly, but on the other hand I still "go there and do that" routinely.

---

Another place where the Israeli Method falls short: Trasitioning from a long gun to the pistol. The ususal reason for this are (1) that your long gun has gone down or that (2) you need to negotiate a space where thelong gun is perceived as a hinderance. Time is of the essence in 1. Not so much in 2, though why add the extra step?

Erik
December 1, 2007, 06:20 PM
"In the event of a shooting event, any unarmed Israeli can pick up the sidearm of an armed Israeli who is down, rack the slide and fire. He does not have to figure out the safety mechanism if he is unfamilar with the model. This policy works well, too."

Correct - this is why the Israelis adopted it; a concession to their state of pistol familiarity and training as a population.

That same concession to familiarity and training can be found else where... so that makes it a best practice exactly how?

JohnKSa
December 1, 2007, 08:58 PM
...that Fairbairn and Sykes model was also used in WWII with 1911s, BHPs, etc without the pinned safeties, and, as usual, nobody seems to have had much trouble with it.I suspect that few people had much trouble with it because as soon as they walked away from the parade ground they chambered a round. ;)

However, I do acknowledge that it was much more common in times past--just as SA only autopistols without firing pin safeties were the norm in times past. When DA/SA autos and firing pin safeties became more available, chamber empty carry largely fell out of favor.

David Armstrong
December 3, 2007, 01:53 PM
so that makes it a best practice exactly how?
I think some are missing the point. Certainly, given modern pistol designs and training, and most people's situations, chamber loaded is the normal default option at this time. But the question is not "what is the best" but "is it effective?" History has answered that for us with a resounding "yes".

Erik
December 3, 2007, 02:28 PM
I agree it is effective, given its limitations, which is why I intially opined:

"It is fine so long as..."

Sometimes the net allows people to "disagree to agree," so to speak.

ulmer
December 3, 2007, 03:18 PM
OK, I had to post here because the Israeli carry is what I do, and always have when carrying a 1911. Lock & load is not for me as I don't want to deal with a safety. That racking is SO easy. Havehn't had to use it but it's my way. Also I have a thing about having to eject a round later. The gun was meant to eject empties, in my opinion.

David Armstrong
December 3, 2007, 03:25 PM
I agree it is effective, given its limitations, which is why I intially opined:

"It is fine so long as..."

That may be the disagreed agreement?? One can say the same about chamber loaded, that "given its limitations is is fine so long as..."

The issue of effective is defined more by what the weapon is used for, not the chamber condition, and thus my point that historically we have seen chamber empty to be quite effective for the assigned task.

Denny Hansen
December 3, 2007, 04:26 PM
alizeefan-

Are Airsoft pistols legal in Australia? If they are, buy one of the higher quality gas guns and you can practice drawing and firing in your home. No, it isn't live fire with a "real" gun, but it would be better than nothing.

Denny

Erik
December 8, 2007, 05:05 PM
I tried to start another thread, but apparently a thread on "Israeli carry" and "loaded chamber limititons" have been deemed the same topic.

So, becasue I was so directed, I'll now attempt to divert this thread:

Someone please explain to me the limitation of a loaded chamber.

Thanks

David Armstrong
December 9, 2007, 04:39 PM
As mentioned before, it is situational. While the loaded chamber might not be a limitation for one person, it might be for another. That is one of the keys, IMO. The other, of course, is that it just doesn't matter much, chamber loaded or empty, in the real world of gun use. So I would preface any discussion with the initial statement that it be considered in that context. But for just a few common limitations real quick:
1. Many older handguns were not designed for and are not safe to carry with the chamber loaded, particularly some striker fired weapons.
2. Another situation where there can be a limitation might be the person whose lifestyle involves a high level of manipulation of the firearm. Let’s go into and out of a Federal Courthouse 4 or 5 times a day. Each time requires you to unload your firearm. Statistically, loading or unloading a firearm is when the chance of an AD/ND is highest. Also the regular recycling of the top rounds into and out of the chamber over and over can lead to bullet setback, which will further increase both the chance of malfunction and the potential of an overpressure round.
3. A limitation might come from the design of the firearm itself. Some firearms just don’t work that well for everyone in all modes. Two very specific and personal examples. I’ve got a friend who loves and carries an older Browning Hi-Power. However, he does not like the design of the safety and thus carries it chamber empty. He feels that racking the slide gives him a more reliable first shot than working the safety. I’m that way with a number of the Walther-based small autoloaders. Racking the slide gives me a better first shot than fighting through the atrocious DA first shot. One gets a more accurate and in many cases just as fast shot by chambering then firing SA.
4. Training can create a situation where there is a bit of a limitation. Even with modern well-designed firearms, there are far more AD/NDs than actual GG/BG shootouts. Thus for any situation where the shooter is not well-trained the odds of AD/ND exceed those of getting into a gunfight with the BG.
5. Finally, let's look at what I think is probably the most important limitation of all, personal comfort. Whether one likes to admit it or not, there are some people that are not and will not ever be comfortable carrying with a round in the chamber. Whether it be the result of their training (yes, large numbers of folks, both worldwide and in the U.S. have been trained to carry and use the gun from a chamber empty position)or their perceptions or their biases, there are a number of people that will not carry at all if they have to carry chamber loaded. From a personal defense position, I would suggest that the chamber empty carry is far better than not carrying at all.

Now let me ask you a question that nobody seems able or willing to answer: If chamber empty carry is such a problem and is so bad, why is it that for most of the 20th Century, when chamber empty was the most common way of carrying an autoloader in all areas (civilian, military, and LE) did we not see these problems everyone keeps bringing up?

JohnKSa
December 9, 2007, 05:16 PM
why is it that for most of the 20th Century, when chamber empty was the most common way of carrying an autoloader in all areas (civilian, military, and LE) did we not see these problems everyone keeps bringing up?Because during this time period DA revolvers were, by far, the most common choice for LE and self-defense. The military used autopistols, but not as primary weapons. Drawing and chambering a round in an autopistol is still much faster than trying to bum some extra rifle rounds from your buddy when you run dry or field stripping your rifle to get it running again.

When autopistols really began to come into favor in LE they were almost invariably carried chamber loaded.

Chindo18Z
December 9, 2007, 07:34 PM
David Armstrong: If chamber empty carry is such a problem and is so bad, why is it that for most of the 20th Century, when chamber empty was the most common way of carrying an autoloader in all areas (civilian, military, and LE) did we not see these problems everyone keeps bringing up?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If I’ve offended anyone…tough.

Erik
December 9, 2007, 11:16 PM
Thanks for answering the "drift."

Pretty much what JohnKSa wrote. I'll add that I don;t understand conditon 3 at all - I'd much rather run a revolver, as mentioned. To each their own.

---

Chindo18Z,
Glad you made it back. Thanks for whatever it is you do.

David Armstrong
December 10, 2007, 01:39 PM
Because during this time period DA revolvers were, by far, the most common choice for LE and self-defense.
I think that skirts the issue. Yes, the revolver was the dominant handgun, bu tthere were a lot of autoloaders out there and they were being carried chamber empty.
When autopistols really began to come into favor in LE they were almost invariably carried chamber loaded.
Only in the U.S. Internationally the autoloader was accepted by LE long before the U.S. and was (and in many areas still is) carried chamber empty. Again, without any of these alleged problems cropping up.

markj
December 10, 2007, 02:05 PM
I was taught:

Condition 1 = 1 second to kill
condition 2 = 2 seconds to kill
condition 3 = 3 seconds to kill

Have to decide for yourself what you need for SD and train for that level. Who cares what anyone else does. Thisis about your self defense not someone else. Do what makes you comfy and train, train train. Practise the draw, rack, fire until you can do so in 3 seconds. Try it and have your wife time ya. You may be surprised at how long it really takes. Petition non carry places to allow carry or we will be facing a lot more mall incidents I fear.

David Armstrong
December 10, 2007, 02:09 PM
BTW, forget the Israeli public.
Why? They are a good example of the issue. Why should one forget those elements that tend to support a position?
1. Most people during the 20th Century carried revolvers…generally more powerful rounds and (oh yeah)…faster to employ than C3, especially prior to WWII.
See above. Lots of autolaoders carried, and carried chamber empty. No significant problems.
2. Most folks carrying semi-autos during the 20th Century were ill trained by their organizations
Most folks carrying in the 21st Century are not well trained either.
3. Very few semi-autos fielded en masse during the 20th Century had decent combat ergonomics as far as safety mechanisms were concerned
So you would agree that the ergonomics issue is a valid one for chamber empty carry?
. For a large part of the 20th Century, Officers carried swagger sticks....
Not sure what any of that has to do with CCW, LE, and the issues at hand.
5. Most folks carrying any handgun in past conflicts or law enforcement duty never used them in anger; carry condition was (ultimately) irrelevant.
None of that has changed.
6. Many folks who did carry C3 failed to survive, but their comrades did and passed on the hard lesson learned – Darwinism at work; chamber empty carry went the way of swords and for some of the same reasons.

Two problems there. First, many folks who carried C1 also failed to survive, and chamber empty did not go the way of the sword. It is still practiced and/or mandated by many, including large segments of the U.S. military.
yet another instance of ill-trained troops recognized as such by nervous commanders
And the training is not that much better, whether it be troops or civilians. Most folks who use pistols in 21st Century combat and law enforcement DON’T use C3.
Again, so what? The issue is not what is used by most, the question is if C3 versus C1 has a significant impact on survival chances.
The SAS don’t today and didn’t in the mid-70’s (sorry, I’m just going to have to trust my first person observations at war, on training ranges, and operational deployments).
Equally sorry, but I'm also going to trust my first person observations of when I was training with and working alongside SAS members in the 1970s when they did carry C3 and almost to a man considerd C1 to be "playing cowboy."
Do you start to see a pattern?
Yes. Do you see that the pattern is irrelevant to the issue? The issue is really simple, and all this obfuscating doesn't change it at all.
US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan typically carry Condition 4 (no magazine inserted / no round in chamber) for both pistol and rifle while inside the safety of their own wire. It's mandated. During periods of heightened threat or when crossing the wire, rounds are chambered and weapons are on safe (Condition 1)
Exactly as I've said, different solutions for different situations.
***?! Is this a bad joke? Why should anyone be at risk from a well trained “Pistolero” due to Condition 1?
Because these well trained pistoleros regularly have AD/ND events that could have been prevented with C3 carry. See, there is a lot more to the issue than just the gunfight.
NightHawk and David Armstrong: While you both provide articulate written defense of your preferred technique, neither of you have ever shot and killed anyone. Nor engaged in live “CQB”.
I can't speak for Nighthawk, but I can speak for myself, and I would suggest you find out the facts before you go making statements like that. You see, I have BTDT, and more than once. I have engaged in live CQB, was doing it before CQB became a common term, and I'm going to make a guess that I was doing it while you were still making messes in your diapers. Given your comments I would question if you have any experience in defensive gun use and tactical considerations outside of the military? While the military is a great organization, lots of what goes on there is of limited applicability to non-military situations and issues.
The fact that you feel comfortable with C3 (for perfectly legitimate personal reasons) does not mean that it is a superior or particularly effective way to carry. If it works for you, that’s great.
Never said it was superior or effective, just as C1 is not superior or effective, in and of itself. Superior and effective is defined by need, and what makes C3 superior and effective for one person or situation might make C1 superior and effective for another person or another situation.

mikejonestkd
December 10, 2007, 02:25 PM
The OP question/ query was " is the so called israeli method of racking the slide on the draw a viable solution in a real world incident. "

as several people have replied ( most recently David Armstrong )

The answer is still ' Yes ' for some, but not universally for everyone.

If I may quote from other posts:

"Never said it was superior or effective, just as C1 is not superior or effective, in and of itself. Superior and effective is defined by need, and what makes C3 superior and effective for one person or situation might make C1 superior and effective for another person or another situation."

Hopefully this question has been answered by now.....

Hopefully.

David Armstrong
December 10, 2007, 02:27 PM
Condition 1 = 1 second to kill
condition 2 = 2 seconds to kill
condition 3 = 3 seconds to kill

If it is taking 2 seconds to rack the slide, there is a problem that goes far beyond any discussion regarding chamber condition, IMO.

CajunBass
December 10, 2007, 02:38 PM
A clear cut application of the "golden rule" here. They that has the gold gets to make the rules. You want a job. They have a job. Since they're paying you, you get to either obey the rules, or don't take the job.

When you consier the (1) very low probability that you'll need the weapon at all, and (2) the even lower probabality that having an empty chamber would make any difference at all, I know what I'd do.

On the other hand, the probably that you will be unemployed if you don't take the job is pretty high. At least in regards to THAT job. There may be other possibilities.

Seems simple to me really.

JohnKSa
December 10, 2007, 03:40 PM
Yes, the revolver was the dominant handgun, bu tthere were a lot of autoloaders out there and they were being carried chamber empty.I still would like to see a cite for this. Internationally the autoloader was accepted by LE long before the U.S. and was (and in many areas still is) carried chamber empty. And this.

Denny Hansen
December 10, 2007, 03:57 PM
Both chamber loaded/empty chamber advocates have posted enough for allizeefan to make up his own mind. This one has run its course.

Denny