PDA

View Full Version : The Israeli way...


P-35HP
March 31, 2008, 03:57 PM
It seems that the Israelis do not care about “21 feet rule” and/or about the theory mandating to “carry in condition one or you are doomed “.
All point to the "fact" that it is "imposible" to draw, rack the slide and shoot twice, fast enough to stop a surprise attack.

I am emphasizing that it only seems that this is the case, as in the article bellow there is no mention of the type of the weapon used or how exactly it has been carried.

Knowing the Israelis habits, I would suspect that it was a 9mm pistol carried in condition three with FMJ ammo. It may also very well be an UZI with FMJ ammo or an AR of some type, all carried in condition three (is it the right term for a SMG or an assault rifle?).
It seems to me that the knife attack came from a short distance, with a certain amount of surprise and that the defender has been able to pull the weapon and shoot twice stopping the attack and killing the terrorist.


"An Ofra resident, in his thirties, returned from his workplace in (the settlement of) Itamar, got off at the Shiloh hitchhikers' station, where a 16-year-old boy was standing. Shortly afterwards, they were approached by the terrorist, who began talking to them in broken English, mixed with Hebrew and Arabic. He seemed nervous, put his hand into his shirt between the buttons, pulled out a knife and shouted, 'Allah Akbar' (God is great).

"The Ofra resident pulled out his weapon, fired two bullets, and the terrorist fell on the floor. Security and medical forces were dispatched to the area and tended to the terrorist, but eventually proclaimed him dead."


It looks like the arguments for "the necessity" of caring all the time in condition one vs. condition three, the "necessity" to have “one in the pipe”, the 21 feet theory, or the "best" caliber and type of bullet are just theoretical opinions. The reality, in many cases, proves them wrong.

One has to be aware of the theories, but should not take them too seriously.

A thing is certain, if you have your weapon with you, are well trained and are willing and unafraid to fight and survive, the chances are that you will prevail.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3525910,00.html

Terror attack thwarted near West Bank settlement
Palestinian attempting to stab people standing at hitchhikers' station near Shiloh shot to death by Israeli citizen; 7.5-inch knife found on terrorist's body
Efrat Weiss
Published: 03.31.08, 17:53 / Israel News

An Israeli citizen shot dead a Palestinian man who attempted to stab people standing at a hitchhikers station near the West Bank settlement of Shiloh on Monday evening.

The Magen David Adom emergency services, there were no Israeli casualties in the incident. A 20-centimeter (7.5-inch) knife was found on the terrorist's body, in addition to the knife he used to try and stab the citizens.




An initial IDF inquiry revealed that the Palestinian ran towards the hitchhikers' station in an attempt to stab two citizens standing there. One of the civilians pulled out his personal weapon, fired at the terrorist and killed him.

A police sapper examined the terrorist's body in order to rule out the presence of explosive devices.

Senior IDF officers told Ynet that the citizens acted as expected during the incident.

"An initial investigation revealed that the terrorist arrived in order to stab civilians. A citizen, believed to be a residents of (the settlement of) Ofra, shot the terrorist and killed him. Another knife was found on the terrorist's body in addition to the one he held as he tried to stab the citizens."

'Terrorist seemed nervous'
Colonel (res.) Moti Yogev, deputy mayor of the Binyamin Regional Council, told Ynet about the chain of events.

"An Ofra resident, in his thirties, returned from his workplace in (the settlement of) Itamar, got off at the Shiloh hitchhikers' station, where a 16-year-old boy was standing. Shortly afterwards, they were approached by the terrorist, who began talking to them in broken English, mixed with Hebrew and Arabic. He seemed nervous, put his hand into his shirt between the buttons, pulled out a knife and shouted, 'Allah Akbar' (God is great).

"The Ofra resident pulled out his weapon, fired two bullets, and the terrorist fell on the floor. Security and medical forces were dispatched to the area and tended to the terrorist, but eventually proclaimed him dead."

According to Yogev, only 10 days ago two Arabs attempted to stab civilians at the same junction, but fled as an IDF patrol passed by.

MDA paramedic Ilan Klein, who arrived at the scene of the incident, told Ynet, "We received a report of gunshots in the Shiloh Junction area. When we arrived, we saw a terrorist lying near the hitchhikers' station, with several bullet holes in his body and a 20-centimter knife near his body.

"The young man who shot the terrorist said that he had approached them in a bid to stab them, with his knife pulled out. When he noticed the man, he fired at him."

The paramedic added that two people were standing at the hitchhikers' station – a 30-year-old man who shot the terrorist and a 15-year-old boy.

The security forces' alert level across the country has been raised recently as Hizbullah marked 40 days since the assassination of its top commander Imad Mugniyah in Damascus.





During a memorial held in Beirut last week, the organization's Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah said, "The Israelis are worried – let them remain that way. They must know that whoever murdered our commander will be punished."

Defense Minister Ehud Barak noted recently that Hizbullah may still carry out a terror attack to avenge Mugniyah's death. "We must be prepared and we are taking the proper measures," he said.

B. Lahey
March 31, 2008, 04:07 PM
How do you know this guy was carrying in condition 3?

He was a civilian.

And no, that would not be the correct terminology for an Uzi, they fire from an open bolt.

Hard Ball
March 31, 2008, 04:52 PM
If I an carrying an automattic pistol there will be a round in the chamber.

orionengnr
March 31, 2008, 05:23 PM
Most of what I read indicates that the so-called "Israeli Carry" (Condition III) was in effect when they had a plethora of different weapons, and that was some time ago. I have read that since they have updated\/standardised their military, C-III is no longer used....

alizeefan
March 31, 2008, 05:27 PM
"The Ofra resident pulled out his weapon, fired two bullets, and the terrorist fell on the floor. Security and medical forces were dispatched to the area and tended to the terrorist, but eventually proclaimed him dead." As B. Lahey said this does not give any information at all about the condition the weapon was in. I started an israeli carry thread a while ago and by the end, as you would expect , there were many people for and many against. My opinion is that while condition 3 can be used it does not cover the full spectrum of possible scenarios as efficently as condition 1 does ( such as fending with face smash or searching with torch with offhand ). Let's be honest, the only reason for carrying condition 3 is due to concern over losing control of your weapon which is better addressed through training and decent holsters and at the risk of upsetting some people let's remember that the israeli army is made up of people who are doing their national service and are NOT as professional as their full time counterparts in other western nations who have full time standing armies. It may well be to stop people with a few months training who are in a volotile area of the world from " shooting at shadows ". Just a theory and I could be completely wrong :D

crowbeaner
March 31, 2008, 05:36 PM
I carried my Colt 10mm cocked and locked always. Galco Miami Classic rig with 2 full mags. What good does the weapon do if it takes you longer than 3 seconds to get it into play? I also carried it crossdraw IWB just on my left hipbone for dress purposes. Harder to get into play, but not as noticeable with a coat on.

Frank Ettin
March 31, 2008, 08:56 PM
There's nothing in any of those accounts to suggest that the weapons were carried in condition 3. In fact, there's precious little detail provided. In any event, the Israeli draw is military doctrine, and these were civilians -- not bound by military doctrine.

While the Israeli draw can be executed very quickly, it is not a quick as a draw from condition 1. In addition, you must have two hands available. I don't know about you, but I am unwilling to count on having both hands free if I need my weapon. I will only carry in condition 1.

Slopemeno
March 31, 2008, 09:24 PM
The whole point of the C-3 carry there was the number of AD's that were happening, NOT because it was desireable.

The whole point of carrying a defensive handgun is the ability to address life-threatening problems quickly, sometimes one-handed.

Dwight55
March 31, 2008, 10:30 PM
If I had to carry condition 3, . . . I think I would seriously consider carrying an old SAA with only 5 in it, . . . and would learn to fan that thing like BillyBob Shooter Boy.

May God bless,
Dwight

Chindo18Z
April 1, 2008, 12:07 AM
I predict that this thread will die in an acrimonious verbal shootout within a few pages... ;)

In as much as everyone will quote sources, research, statistics, probability, celebrity instructors, elite units, probabilities, J-frame revolver vs high capacity semi-autos, antecdotes, war stories, Israeli military prowess, astrological signs, Glock vs. Everything Else, Tueller Drills, North Hollywood Shootout, FBI Miami Shootout, Iraq, NY SOP 9, Fackler, Marshall & Sanow, SA vs. DA, ADs/NDs, lack of training, carry while in the shower, ad nauseum...

I'll simply recommend carrying an unloaded .22 LR Davis Derringer (and extensive practice of my favorite gunfighter's SOP drill for danger).

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j245/Chindo18Z/BarneyFife.jpg

YMMV :)

Hornett
April 1, 2008, 09:05 AM
If every BG shouted 'Allah Akbar' before he did anything, you could practically defend yourself with a stick. :cool:

There is an ongoing debate here abour condition 3 vs condition 1.
This story doesn't have enough real info to prove or disprove wither way of carrying.

nemoaz
April 1, 2008, 09:27 AM
This is nearly as dumb as the why load your magazine thread. If you want to carry your weapon with an empty chamber and the magazine half full-- or empty-- by all means do it.

Just don't try to explain that you are a Mall Ninja Instructor and your advice should be heeded by everyone else.

yomama
April 1, 2008, 09:30 AM
The OPs first post to. Welcome to the forum, although i don't know what your motives for this post were. Carry condition 3 if you think its better for you. I'll always carry one.

Glenn E. Meyer
April 1, 2008, 09:52 AM
Another unchambered thread! What new things will be said?

:barf:

P-35HP
April 1, 2008, 11:04 AM
Thank you all for your thoughts and the will to share them.
For those that find that this issue is brought up to often, thank you too for letting me know.
There is always something to learn and I really appreciate ALL the inputs.

As I have said, there is very little info. about the weapon and tactics employed, and I do not know the actual type of weapon or how it was carried.

I have few observations about what it has been posted.

First, it does not have to take “3 sec.” to execute the draw (from an IWB holster, under a T-Shirt, shirt or vest). It can be done, very successfully, in less than that. Just take a look at the clip that Defense Review has. It is a Kareen promo of a quite low quality and mostly boring, but if you can take the time and wait, there are two scenes were a guy in a vest performs the draw. Download button is at the bottom of the page
http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=469

Deploying a gun carried in condition three (not at Miculek speed but still at reasonable speed) can be very quick. Take a look at those clips:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mvbv75gAfrE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xohtwS1Tm4c

The Israeli system has been taught at all levels, civilians, military, police, SF. The regular Israeli soldier does not carry a handgun. Only a few military SF are issued handguns, if at all. Police caries mostly SA Jericho 9MM in condition three. Civilians carry modern privately owned firearms like Glock, Sig, FN P35, etc. or SMG and AR if required and issued by the military.

IPSC dose endorse condition one as everywhere.

The main threat to police officers and civilians lives is from terrorist acts. Armed attacks and violent home invasions that require use of deadly force in SD are extremely rare.

Below is a link to a news clip illustrating SF training. Some scenes show the handgun drill.
It is a reserve unit composed of former regular SF ops. with at least three years of experience.
I am sorry, it is all in Hebrew but very informative.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsGPI_t-wko

Condition 3 DOSE NOT covers all the needs. I agree that in a scenario were one may expect to be jumped and killed at every moment, adequate tactics and equipment should be employed.
Having only one hand available in a threatening scenario requires that the gun should be IN Hand, condition one.
The Israeli technique, as I know it, emphasis that if you think that a threat is imminent and you expect to have to deploy a gun, by all means have that gun in your hand, condition one. Drop the safety and fire if needed.

The legal and the liability aspects for civilians here in USA, are also a factor to be considered when one have to choose between condition one three. In some cases, condition one is the better option.

One more think. An UZI can be carried (NOT RECOMENDED) in condition one. Just insert the magazine, pull the cocking handle back (do not forget to push it back forward) and apply the safety. All you need to do is disengage the safety and fire.

My point is that it relay does not matter what you choose, condition one or three.
Most important is the proficiency with that weapon, safety and the will to fight and win.

M1911
April 1, 2008, 11:10 AM
Why spend a great deal of training time learning to quickly draw and charge the chamber (using two hands or one) when you can learn how to operate a safety in far less time?

The Israeli technique the answer to a question I've never asked.

Frank Ettin
April 1, 2008, 12:24 PM
I've heard the "condition 3 but use condition 1 if a threat is imminent" repeatedly. The thing is, how do you know if a threat is imminent in ordinary life as you go about your daily business? As a private citizen, if I know that a threat is imminent, I won't be there.

And if you're out in the world and the hairs on your neck start to stand out and you get the feeling that something bad is about to happen, what do you do with your gun carried in condition 3? Do you produce your roscoe and chamber a round -- out there in front of God and everyone? And if you're wrong, you've just attracted a lot of unfavorable attention.

Situational awareness is a very good thing, but it doesn't always work. And when it does work, it's probably best used to avoid a bad situation altogether.

The likelihood of needing your gun and the likelihood that you will need it quickly to respond to a sudden threat are independent variables. The odds of needing your gun are minuscule. But the odds that if you do need it, you will need if very quickly, are substantial. The fact that it's unlikely that you'll need your gun is not a good reason, IMHO, to carry it in less than a state of immediate readiness.

That's how I look at things and why I will carry in condition 1. If you see things differently, you're free to choose how you carry.

M1911
April 1, 2008, 12:34 PM
fiddletown: good point. Another big issues with "sometimes this way, sometimes that way" is that it adds further complication to your response in extremis. Pick one way to carry (whether condition 1, 2, or 3). Then train that way and always carry that way. Train the way you fight and fight the way you train.

If you sometimes carry condition 1 and sometimes carry condition 3, then there is a good chance that you will be in one condition but think you are in the other. If you are in condition 1 but think you are in condition 3, you'll cycle the slide and drop a round on the ground. If you are in condition 3 but think you are in condition 1, then you will pull the trigger and nothing will happen -- that could have very disastrous consequences.

P-35HP
April 1, 2008, 12:35 PM
M1911, you are right. I have asked it.

My scope in posting is to educate MYSELF on the issue.
I do not intend to convince or to preach to anybody to adopt it. I am only pointing to the FACT that the system is working well.

I am looking for educated opinions that address the issue. I am not interested in sarcasm, arrogance, etc.

Most of the posts that I have read, in other forums, concerning this issue are full uninformative statements.

It is my hope that this form member will produce relevant info. that can help me understand the subject.

BTW what is a Mall Ninja?

M1911
April 1, 2008, 01:02 PM
I am looking for educated opinions that address the issue. I am looking for educated opinions that address the issue. I am not interested in sarcasm, arrogance, etc.

Arrogance? No. A touch of sarcasm? Sure. It is the web after all ;)

I'll let you judge whether my opinion is educated or not. I've had approximately 200 hours of training from a number of institutions, including Lethal Force Institute, Sigarms Academy, Smith & Wesson Academy, Cumberland Tactics, etc. I'm an NRA certified firearms instructor and compete regularly in IDPA. I'm an NRA and IDPA certified range safety officer.

I've been taught how to draw and reholster safely, including the proper manipulation of a 1911 safety. I've also been taught how to do one handed slide manipulations. So my opinion on this matter is based upon my first-hand experience.

It did not take long at all for myself or the other students to learn how to properly manipulate a 1911 safety during the draw, and how to reapply before reholstering. I'd say an hour tops. It was even faster for the students with Glocks who did not have a safety to manipulate. All they had to learn was proper location of their trigger finger during drawing and reholstering.

On the other hand, cycling the slide with one hand was not easy. It is not easy to do quickly and safely. Snag-free rear sights like Novaks make this more difficult. Something like Heinie's new ledge sight makes that a little easier: https://www.heinie.com/cart/product_info.php?products_id=129&osCsid=095db4a3afb974fbdbabd7c2e1e6f238

But even with a proper rear sight, it isn't easy to do quickly or safely. Yes, there are people who can do it quickly -- they spent a lot of time training to get there.

My point (which I made shortly and sweetly above and I'm making with far more words here), is that nothing comes for free. If you are going to use the Israeli system, you will have to spend a lot of time training in order to become competent with it. In particular, it will take a good bit of time to be able to do it quickly with one hand. You must learn how to do it with one hand because if the worst happens your other hand might be busy (fending off the perp, pushing your child to safety, etc). And you had better be good at it because I suspect cycling the slide with one hand is more difficult when wrestling with a perp than it is on a square range.

It is my experience that you can learn to operate a 1911-style safety in less time than it will take to learn to quickly cycle the slide one-handed. And you can learn to safely draw and reholster a Glock in even less time than that.

Furthermore, carrying chamber empty is slower than carrying chamber full. Yes, with a lot of training you can get faster. But your first shot will be slower starting from condition 3 than it will be from condition 1. If carrying chamber empty was faster, then Todd Jarrett and all the other pro shooters would be competing that way. They aren't. If you ever need a gun, you will need it real bad and you will need it right now. Why would you want to make it slower for your first shot?

I am only pointing to the FACT that the system is working well. And you make this statement based on couple anecdotes?

If you go to any major shooting school in the US (Gunsite, Thunder Ranch, Blackwater, etc.), not one of them trains people condition 3. If you speak with any major police department in the US, you will find that their officers are trained to carry with the chamber full.

Carrying chamber empty has significant disadvantages and, IMHO, few if any advantages. YMMV.

I strongly urge you to train at a major shooting school.

Oh, one last thing. You asked about the Mall Ninja. Mall Ninja was the name of a famous poster on GlockTalk who perpetrated perhaps one of the best (and funniest) trolls ever: http://lonelymachines.org/mall-ninjas/

Read that and you'll understand what a mall ninja is. But careful reading it at work -- you may end up laughing hysterically. Though perhaps he made the troll a bit too obvious with the special wall climbing boots bit.

buzz_knox
April 1, 2008, 01:27 PM
Carrying chamber empty has significant disadvantages and, IMHO, few if any advantages. YMMV.

The one advantage is that if you deal with 1) weapons with difficult to manipulate safeties or 2) various weapons with different operating characteristics (DA vs SA, safeties in diff. locations, etc), then keeping all weapons in Condition 3 and running them that way is expedient. That's why the Israelis went to the technique. Those situations no longer are in effect (they've standardized weapons), they have largely abandoned Condition 3 carry.

Frank Ettin
April 1, 2008, 01:38 PM
And I agree with M1911. To help you decide if my opinion can be considered educated:

[1] I've trained at Gunsite, in both handgun and rifle. I've also had training with the Walt Marshall's Advanced Weapons and Tactics group and one class with Louis Awerbuck.

[2] I've competed in IPSC (Limited Division). I was a USPSA certified range officer (but let my certification lapse).

[3] I'm an NRA certified instructor in Basic Handgun, Personal Protection Inside the Home and Personal Protection Outside the Home.

[4] My handgun of choice has always been the 1911. All my formal training has been with the 1911, and in all my handgun competition I've used a 1911.

Water-Man
April 1, 2008, 01:44 PM
A average man can get to you in 1.5 sec. from 21 ft. away.

M1911
April 1, 2008, 01:46 PM
P-35HP: I see from your profile that you are in NH. So head over to Sigarms Academy or Lethal Force Institute and take a class. Sigarms Academy has a cheap 4-hour introduction to concealed carry. That will teach you how to draw and reholster. Their 2-day class would be better, of course.

Glenn E. Meyer
April 1, 2008, 01:59 PM
The issue has been asked and answered 1000s of time by now.

The core is:

1. Do you fear an ND?
2. Do you fear not being able to get the gun in operation fast enough?

#1 is taken care of by training. If you fear the gun you carry due to its mechanics or your lack of training/ability, then don't carry it. Very simple.

#2 - one would have to have a very, very large data set from the real world to come up with a distribution of handgun incidents that would indicate a disadvantage for unchambered carry. But the incidents have to be broken down to their specifics. Arguing the mean or modal action in multifactor situations is stupid but typical of some gun usage arguments. The mean is NOT guaranteed to occur. This is a stupid conclusion made time and again in gun discussions. You need to plan for a reasonable range of possibilities.

Unchambered carry has risks in some reasonable scenarios that would seem to outweigh the ND risk for those who have trained well. If you haven't trained with your gun then you are a liability and shouldn't carry.

That's about all there is in thousands of posts, endless posts, over and over.

As pointed out the Israeli example is thrown up by folks with little analytic skill as a cliche to prove their point. If you want to analyze such, you need training from various research disciplines (or just common sense) to actually reach a generalization from their experience.

Boris Bush
April 1, 2008, 02:03 PM
One thing I hate about the internet is sometimes people think they can learn how to shoot by watching youtube.

It looks kool and works good on a range or WHEN YOU ARE ON A MISSION IN A WAR WHERE YOUR HANDGUN IS A BACKUP. Even then it will likely be carried in some kind of retention holster and have a lanyard on it.

Try them kool looking mall ninja moves while carrying a bag of goodies you just bought at the mall and fight off someone that just blind sided you.

Gun fights are not like a trip to the range, they aren't even nowhere close to IDPA or IPSC if you do that stuff.

Listen to M1911, he has pretty well summed it up pretty well, and the training isn't a bad idea either.

buzz_knox
April 1, 2008, 02:24 PM
It looks kool and works good on a range or WHEN YOU ARE ON A MISSION IN A WAR WHERE YOUR HANDGUN IS A BACKUP.

My understanding is that for those troops who carry a pistol as a secondary weapon, it gets chambered prior to going outside the wire.

MLeake
April 1, 2008, 03:06 PM
My experience was that we used approved holsters, but of various types. Never saw anybody use a lanyard, not even the Special Boat guys.

Prior to going outside the wire, we chambered long arms and pistols at the loading barrels.

Cheers,

M

P-35HP
April 1, 2008, 04:49 PM
Great responses. Thank you, ALL.

M1991, VERY IMPRESIVE BACKROUND AND EXPERIANCE. Your recomandation regarding Sig Academy is welcomed, as well as all all other recomadations . I was contemplating atending one of SIG Academy clases for a wile. I will at some point.

The arguments that you guys put forward in favor of condition one are very solid. I apriciate your experiance and the will to share it with me. I am always learning from other.

rampage841512
April 1, 2008, 04:52 PM
As I've said before on similar threads, you carry how you like and I'll do the same.

P-35HP
April 1, 2008, 05:03 PM
rampage. You are exactly to the point, but I also like to hear other pepole opinions and learn from them.
Thank you

Boris Bush
April 1, 2008, 07:10 PM
buzz knox, MLeake

We only had one guy carry his M9 that was issued to him. It was in one of them fancy Blackhawk holsters and he did use a lanyard C2. There were alot of various makes of pistols on the truck, carried in any manner they saw fit. We mostly had G19s and they all carried them Condition 3. If things got so bad that they needed them they would have been well hidden or covered so speed was not needed.

When we loaded and unloaded we never dismounted to do so. I didn't go to work in a humvee or other light skined truck.

ghost rider out........

HankB
April 1, 2008, 07:26 PM
I used to shoot IDPA with a guy who was an IDF veteran - he carried a BHP with a round chambered and the safety on, but he eventually got the SFS system installed and seemed to like it.

We never actually discussed mode of carry in Israel, but he told me the training said that if you're in a fight with a handgun, always keep moving - forward, if possible - and as you pass any downed terrorist, put a bullet through his eye - he was adamant about the eye - to be SURE he won't get up when your back is to him.

Naturally, administering a coup-de-grace like this to a downed bad guy in any except the most unusual circumstances will land you in legal hot water here in TX . . .

vox rationis
April 1, 2008, 09:00 PM
M1911 and the rest of you fellows that argue against the "Israeli Method" have said just about all that can be said on this topic, and in a most effective way, IMHO.

It seems to me that people start with the preconceived emotional inclination that it is unsafe to carry with chamber loaded, and then look for examples that support their position, the Israeli Method being one of them.

Since the Israeli method is such an egregious self imposed handicap in the realm of efficient gun handling, I am totally mystified what the point of carrying that way in a potential danger zone would be. I suppose that the only way I'd carry that way is if I had my Glock and no holster, and I was forced to Mexican Carry.

http://lonelymachines.org/mall-ninjas/
that is quite funny :D
so is that the actual beginnings of the term "mall ninja"?

M1911
April 2, 2008, 05:50 AM
so is that the actual beginnings of the term "mall ninja"?It is indeed the source of the term "mall ninja."

P-35HP
April 2, 2008, 07:24 AM
HankB
The Israeli vet. described the military doctrine and in general what a police officer or a civilian with military training would do in a typical Israeli SD incident, i.e. stopping or preventing a terrorist act.

Typically, one would advance and "reduce the distance" as fast as possible wile striving to eliminate the threat as fast as possible. The use of cover and tactical reload are used wile keeping the trust forward, toward the target. The goal is to get to the target as fast as possible, to keep his head down and busy by creating a high volume of ACURATE fire and eliminate the threat in the shortest time.

If possible, team tactics and other tactics are used.

It should be carefully and skillfully deployed as the terrorists may have explosives attached. Sometime the usual shooting and stabbing are followed by detonating the explosives.

The military teaches that after passing an enemy position, there should be a sweep back in order to make sure no enemy solider is left behind with the capability to do harm wile one moves forward.

Civilians or police officers HERE have no use of this tactics due to the legal implication and public opinion.

The BHP was very popular and widely used in Israel at all levels. I like it and I carry it. There are many other better guns out there, but this is what I like the most. I hate the hammer bite, though.
I was thinking about the SFS, but I am too old to change my decades old (and dangerous to myself, as many here seems to suggest) habits.

IPSC / IDPA leagues in Israel are following the same rules as here.

stephen426
April 2, 2008, 10:01 AM
P-35HP,

For the record, I don't have anywhere near the credentials as some of these guys, but I have been shooting for a long time and read a lot on shooting and self defense. With that said... here is my view on condition 3 carry.

Is there a law requiring Israelis to carry in condition 3 and only use fmj ammo? Those laws don't exist here. Why not give yourself every advantage you can? Just because this outcome was good does not make condition 3 with fmj ammo the ideal method of carry.

There are many factors that determine the outcome of a gun fight. Maybe the shooter was already watching the terrorist due to the terrorist's behavior. Situational awareness is one of the most important elements for self defense. Since he was already aware, I'm sure his reaction time was much faster than it would have been if he was caught completely off guard. The problem is that drawing and firing from condition 3 will always be slower than drawing and shooting from condition 1. As mentioned, you may not always have both hands free (carrying a kid or maybe your other hand is injured). FMJ rounds have less "stopping power" since less of the energy is deposited into the target. As a hollowpoint opens up and deforms, it slows down more inside the body, depositing more energy into the target. As long as there is sufficient penetration, hollow points will out perform fmj rounds. There is also the possibility that there was a bit of luck involved. There are many incidences where people take multiple hits and are still capable of fighting. It is possible that the shooter hit something vital and that the terrorist just collapsed.

My point (after all of this rambling) is why risk slowing yourself down and why use less effective amo if you are not required to? The main idea in a gunfight is to come out unscathed and to stop the attack as quickly as possible. Do what you likke, but I carry hollowpoints in my guns in condition 1.

P-35HP
April 2, 2008, 11:43 AM
No laws against the FMJ for civilians. They can choose whatever they want. The police use the FMJ. I do not know about the SF in anti terrorism duty.

Military is FMJ as far as I am aware of.

I think that it was Chuck Taylor that at one point recommended FMJ in .45 at some point.
I carried HP and used FMJ for training only.

I have found (from my trials) that there is a difference in speed between one and three. One is, again for me, about 0.2 sec. (with a Sig) faster when all other factors are similar.
Due to other than speed considerations, I carry the BHP in condition three, and as I said with reliable JHP ammo. One of the considerations is the ability to hit the target all the time every time.
For me, after so many years of practicing condition three and Isoscel stance shooting are instinctive and I score hits better.
To change the hole think, and I have tried it, is uprooting an instinct.
I have to kind of “think a bit", a hesitation, before I draw from condition one and get into Isoscel stance. Getting in a Weaver after the draw is even worth.

I do want to stick with what actually worked well for me, rather than fighting this “instinct” to gain the theoretically advantage of about .2 sec. It is an advantage all right, but at a cost.

I have tried (IPSC for few years and dropped) condition one and Weaver because I wanted to understated what advantages are there for me and
I was curious to see what makes so many people passionate about it. I have found that it is a very good combination that works very well for a lot of people, but not me.

Please understand that I am not saying that condition three is superior or the Isoscel is superior.

I am saying that it worked well for me for many years and I have yet to find a reason and the way to get rid of it.

It is working very well FOR A LOT of people in a country that had seen thousands of terrorist acts, had put the first Air Marshalls on commercial flights who actually defended the planes very successfully against hijackers, had four major wars were losing one has never been an option and a lot of small "mini wars" during the last 60 years.

Dose anyone think that the Sabena incident, Antebe operation, Beirut operation, Alger operation and many other known and unknown operation would have been possible and successful if those people did not have good tactics?

M1911
April 2, 2008, 12:43 PM
P-35HP: The US military has done a number of spectacularly good operations. But that hasn't stopped them from doing completely stupid things too, like making security guards carry unloaded guns (e.g., Beirut bombing). I'm sure that the same is true for the Israeli Defense Force. Entebbe was a spectacular success; the most recent Lebanon incursion not so much.

The success or failure of such operations has nothing to do with whether condition 1 or condition 3 is better.

Frank Ettin
April 2, 2008, 12:51 PM
P-35HP,

I understand that you prefer to carry a single action auto-loader in condition 3. I understand your reasons. And I understand that you're free to have that preference and that you're not alone in that preference. The thing I don't understand is why you, and others who choose condition 3 carry, assume that in an emergency, when you may need to deploy your handgun in a hurry, you will necessarily have the full use of both your hands. Because with condition 3 carry, if you don't have full use of both your hands and you need to use your gun quickly, you will pretty much be out of luck.

As to the supposition that condition 3 has worked, first without a lot of detailed information regarding actual incidents, we really don't know that it does -- or at least we don't know exactly when or how it may or may not have worked in a lot of specific situations. We may be able to infer that condition 3 has been used in some situations and that the user has survived; but we don't know exactly what happened in each situation. Nor do we have any detailed information on the situations in which it didn't work. And, with all due respect, I don't believe that you can assume that condition 3 works for you unless you have been in an actual, violent confrontation and prevailed when carrying you sidearm in condition 3.

It also important to reflect that the tactical problems presented in combat or military operations are vastly different from those that will be presented to a private citizen attempting to defend himself from violent street crime.

I have talked with several people who have prevailed in violent encounters, and in at least a couple of those encounters, the defender in fact had to use his pistol one handed. Had those people been carrying in condition 3, they would not have been able to have prevailed. In any event, you can not make an appointment for an emergency, nor can you predict how an emergency will necessarily unfold.

In selecting your mode of firearm carry and in considering the way you train, I think it's important to remember that it is always conceivable that you will need to use your gun one-handed. I always recommend being able to diploy your gun quickly with one hand and training to shoot effectively with one hand -- both your strong hand and your weak hand.

MK11
April 2, 2008, 12:51 PM
No but I don't think carrying a handgun "Israeli style" had anything to do with the success of those missions either. If it works for you, stick with it. As people have already pointed out in this thread, the advantage of carrying with a loaded chamber isn't to gain a fraction of as second in competition but so you can operate your handgun with one hand while an attacker is right in your face, as opposed to having to use two hands for your "handsgun."

Any defense relies on awareness but building in the handicap of an unloaded gun requires you to be even further down the readiness loop. Anyone who says they're in "Condition Yellow" all the time is a liar.

P-35HP
April 2, 2008, 12:52 PM
m1911

You are missing the point. According to published material, handguns have been used in those incidents.
The point is not who is making more mistakes or what is better. This is not a contest (you know what kind), either.

BOTH ARE WORKINK, AND ARE WORKING WELL. BOTH!!

I have not been presented with any substantial facts proving otherwise.

David Armstrong
April 2, 2008, 12:56 PM
It looks like the arguments for "the necessity" of caring all the time in condition one vs. condition three, the "necessity" to have “one in the pipe”, the 21 feet theory, or the "best" caliber and type of bullet are just theoretical opinions. The reality, in many cases, proves them wrong.
It's not just the Israeli technique, there are all sorts of other bits of reality that tend to indicate that a lot of the theories have no basis in fact. Of course, lots of so-called theories are nothing more than dogmatic cliches that gun owners have tossed around for years without caring about the accuracy of the statement.

Since the Israeli method is such an egregious self imposed handicap in the realm of efficient gun handling, I am totally mystified what the point of carrying that way in a potential danger zone would be.
You talk about a "preconceived emotional inclination " and then make a statement like that, which is obviously based on a preconceived emotional inclination? How strange. As mentioned before, history has shown, over and over, despite all the claims to the contrary, that chamber empty carry is not much, if any, handicap, which is why so many people and organizations have used it in so many really hot spots for so long.

Most of what I read indicates that the so-called "Israeli Carry" (Condition III) was in effect when they had a plethora of different weapons, and that was some time ago. I have read that since they have updated\/standardised their military, C-III is no longer used....
Don't know. One of the guys I work with occassionally was in Israel around Christmas and he said that Chamber Empty was still the mandatory carry mode, at least for non-LE. Maybe one of the members on the ground in that area can clarify??

P-35HP
April 2, 2008, 01:16 PM
Fiddletown
Having to deploy the weapon quickly one handed is a question I do not have a good answer for. My answer is slow and cumbersome. Do not like it at all.

I am looking for that answer and this is one of the reasons I bought this subject up. Condition one provides an excellent answer, but for me condition one is not working as well as I would like. You see, I have to hit the target at least as frequent as when I am using condition three.

M1911’s suggestion to attend the Sig Academy or may be one of Mr. Ayoob (which I respect and have read his articles for many years) classes and start from the lowest level may be a good advice. I just need to find the resources to do it.

Agree on the need to practice one handed shooting. I am doing it a lot, but well.. after loading the gun.

ATW525
April 2, 2008, 01:24 PM
I have found (from my trials) that there is a difference in speed between one and three. One is, again for me, about 0.2 sec. (with a Sig) faster when all other factors are similar.
Due to other than speed considerations, I carry the BHP in condition three, and as I said with reliable JHP ammo. One of the considerations is the ability to hit the target all the time every time.
For me, after so many years of practicing condition three and Isoscel stance shooting are instinctive and I score hits better.
To change the hole think, and I have tried it, is uprooting an instinct.
I have to kind of “think a bit", a hesitation, before I draw from condition one and get into Isoscel stance. Getting in a Weaver after the draw is even worth.

I do want to stick with what actually worked well for me, rather than fighting this “instinct” to gain the theoretically advantage of about .2 sec. It is an advantage all right, but at a cost.

I have tried (IPSC for few years and dropped) condition one and Weaver because I wanted to understated what advantages are there for me and
I was curious to see what makes so many people passionate about it. I have found that it is a very good combination that works very well for a lot of people, but not me.

Please understand that I am not saying that condition three is superior or the Isoscel is superior.

I am saying that it worked well for me for many years and I have yet to find a reason and the way to get rid of it.

Whatever works for you. I second the earlier recommendation to attend training at SigArms Academy, though. They are a top notch facility, you can use your BHP and they'll teach you how to draw into a modern isosceles stance from condition one carry.

It is working very well FOR A LOT of people in a country that had seen thousands of terrorist acts, had put the first Air Marshalls on commercial flights who actually defended the planes very successfully against hijackers, had four major wars were losing one has never been an option and a lot of small "mini wars" during the last 60 years.

Dose anyone think that the Sabena incident, Antebe operation, Beirut operation, Alger operation and many other known and unknown operation would have been possible and successful if those people did not have good tactics?

Not sure what the obsession with Israel is about, but I don't think I'd base how I carry my defensive handgun on how many times a country won wars or completed successful operations. One has zero relevance to the other. However if you ever get the chance to talk to a current or former operator in a top tier IDF unit, you just might be surprised on what condition they choose to carry their pistols.

P-35HP
April 2, 2008, 01:52 PM
David Armstrong
Condition three is mandatory for LE in Israel. Civilians have to qualify with the handgun they own and are expected to use Condition three.

The "many types of old handguns used" theory, AS I UNDERSTD IT is not supported by the reality, in my opinion.

Civilians are using modern handguns both S/A and D/A, mostly Glock, Jericho, BHP (the "FN" as they call it) CZ, SIG, Beretta and clones.

The LE agencies and the Military have moved away from the BHP towards Glock, Sig and Jericho and some Berretta. As far as I know, all are required to adder to condition three.

They are not changing to condition one because they have not enough reasons to. The hit/speed results are more or less similar with condition one, police officers and civilians do not expect to and are not jumped in the streets by the local gang members trying to score points with their peers, so the extreme surprise effect and having to draw one handed are not a major issue for them. It is not that one will walk on the street and suddenly a terrorist will jump on him out of the blue. The type of events they encounter allows much more than the “required” 1.5 -2.0 sec. to draw.

At last event at Ofra, it is not clear what happened. What is clear is the end result.

The military does not consider the handgun not even for back-up in the vast majority of its operations.

SF are using it and when used (the AR or the SMG is always preferred); the gun will be on hand, loaded.

IPSC is condition one.

Musketeer
April 2, 2008, 02:11 PM
Search "Israeli carry" and read.

This has all happenned before. It will all happen again.

P-35HP
April 2, 2008, 02:22 PM
Just curious to know and I mean no offense, but did you talk with one of them?

The "obsession with Israel” is due to:
This system has been developed in Israel and is used there at all levels.
This system is working well for them and me.
In order to make the point that this is a system that works and that the Israelis have experience in tactics, I had to bring examples.

Unfortunately, the discussion is drifting away from what my initial intension was.

You are right. There is no necessary a correlation between how many wars a country won and how you should carry your personal weapon.
However, there may be a correlation between the strategy, tactics, weapons systems, etc., such a country may develop to win the wars and the tactics and weapons you may want to adopt for your benefit.
In short, there is nothing wrong to benefit from somebody else experience.
.

David Armstrong
April 2, 2008, 02:23 PM
Condition three is mandatory for LE in Israel. Civilians have to qualify with the handgun they own and are expected to use Condition three.
That was pretty much my understanding (carry condition), although the "qualify with the handgun they own" is new to me.
However if you ever get the chance to talk to a current or former operator in a top tier IDF unit, you just might be surprised on what condition they choose to carry their pistols.
Did that, and he said he always carried chamber empty, as did his colleagues, and he still carries that way here in the U.S.

M1911
April 2, 2008, 02:29 PM
P35: The reality is neither you nor I know how they were carrying in those incidents. US Army policy is that within the wire all guns are unloaded. When a buddy of mine was deployed, he always had a loaded gun on him -- within the wire he just kept his pistol concealed.

Furthermore, in many terrorist incidents, the person who stopped the terrorist was not the person who was attacked. That gave the responder precious seconds to prepare.

Also, once units are outside the wire, the rules from higher ups are often disregarded.

Here in the US, we are far more likely to get attacked by a criminal than to get caught up in a terrorist attack. The attack from a criminal will be against you, at close range, with very little warning. So the time pressure may be far greater than a bystander responding to a terrorist attack against someone else.

Carry how you want to carry. If you want to ensure that it takes longer to get off your first shot, that's your choice. Why you want to do that is completely beyond me, but it is your choice. If you are that worried about an ND, go get some training.

However, don't expect to convince any of us here that condition 3 is a superior way to carry. It isn't.

Honestly, in the amount of time you've spent on this thread, and instructor could have already trained you to carry condition 1. The IDF spends a lot of time training people to draw and chamber a round. Which is completely pointless, when they could simply teach them to carry condition 1 or condition 2 in the same amount of time.

Look, NDs occur because people think a gun isn't loaded. If you carry condition 3 and something bad happens, then you chamber a round, deal with it, and now you have a loaded gun that you are not used to dealing with.

Carrying condition 1 is simpler -- the gun is always loaded, so treat it as such.

dawg23
April 2, 2008, 02:36 PM
P-35HP:

You posted: You are missing the point. According to published material, handguns have been used in those incidents.
The point is not who is making more mistakes or what is better. This is not a contest (you know what kind), either.

BOTH ARE WORKINK, AND ARE WORKING WELL. BOTH!!

I have not been presented with any substantial facts proving otherwise.



Clearly you are placing too great an emphasis on "published material" and not enough on training.

Before you come to a gun forum and spout off theories, at least do us (and yourself) the favor of getting some instruction from a reputable firearms academy. Very few members here are interested in what you have managed to glean from gun rags.

In another post you claim you are here to "hear other pepole opinions and learn from them." (sic)


Yet every time you see an opinion which doesn't fit your preconceived notions (that's a polite way of saying "your uneducated BS"), you argue. Obviously you are more interested in pontificating than in learning.

You asked in one of your posts you asked what was meant by "mall ninja." Perhaps you are more familiar with the term "troll."

P-35HP
April 2, 2008, 02:41 PM
David Armstrong.

The qualification is probably a 15 year old law.

Unfortunately, after the PM Rabin has been assassinated, the Israeli gov. took dramatic actions to reduce the number of pistol permits. One of the steps was to mandate regular qualification with the gun you own and a certificate from your PF that you are mentally and physically fit to be trusted with a gun.

Lots of "anti- gun “regulations have been implemented since then, with the net result of lots of good people and vets. having to turn in their guns because they did not fit one of many silly new myriad of criterias.

It is sad and almost unbelievable, but true.

Musketeer
April 2, 2008, 03:01 PM
I love the myth that if Israel does something it must be right... Their systems have plenty going for them and their lack of resources forces them to think outside the box but there is no problem in calling a **** a ****.

Their policy as a catch all for everyone is a ****. Follow it if you wish. The millions of LEOs and citizens who do otherwise in the USA must all be misinformed.

Absolutely nothing in this thread is any different from the many which have preceded it.

P-35HP
April 2, 2008, 03:04 PM
dawg 23
Thank you for the time you took to read and post your opinion.

Just read and try to understand what I am saying in my posts. I am not a great writer but I have made it clear that I am not trying to convince you or M1911 anything, beside the fact the there is something out there that works, not perfect but works.

Besides, you have no clue what and how much training I have or I do not have, how many "wires" I have passed or didn't, how many classes I took or did not and were if at all.
Nothing, you know nothing about me but have the arrogance to assume that if I do not fit into your square and small brain, I am probably BS.

This is the impolite way to say that you have no respect for something or somebody you do not know or understand because apparently you cannot comprehend that in this big world people, ideas and yes, tactics can be different from what you have learned in your small "inside the wire" place.

Capt Charlie
April 2, 2008, 04:14 PM
Yet every time you see an opinion which doesn't fit your preconceived notions (that's a polite way of saying "your uneducated BS"), you argue. Obviously you are more interested in pontificating than in learning.

You asked in one of your posts you asked what was meant by "mall ninja." Perhaps you are more familiar with the term "troll."

Nothing, you know nothing about me but have the arrogance to assume that if I do not fit into your square and small brain, I am probably BS.

This is the impolite way to say that you have no respect for something or somebody you do not know or understand because apparently you cannot comprehend that in this big world people, ideas and yes, tactics can be different from what you have learned in your small "inside the wire" place.

And, with those tidbits, this one's done :mad:.

Closed.