[David Armstrong]

History shows us nothing if not the folly of holding on to prior beliefs once held sacred that fly in the face of new information - ask Columbus.

First, Columbus was working from a well-known set of facts recognized by most learned men at the time. His error was in how he interpreted those facts. But history also can show us the folly of discarding something that is perfectly acceptable in search of the newest and greatest. But I'm not sure anyone here is hanging on to any prior beliefs, sacred or not. Nobody has said that chamber empty is always better, or that it should always be used, or anything like that. What has been said is that for certain people, in certain situations, it may provide a more effective option for them than chamber loaded.

While Fairbairn et al. made a timely contribution to combat pistolcraft, their techniques are not the be all to end all.

Again, I'm not aware of anybody making such a claim. The claim is that just because new techniques have been developed it does not automatically negate the use of older techniques.

Just because they use it bears no relevance to effectiveness.

In and of itself, no. But when you take that use and examine it, there can be some relevance to decisions as to effectiveness. If something has been used successfully on a regular basis, one can assume it to be reasonably effective at accomplishing the prescribed goal.

Your statements are belief based.

I'll have to call you on that one. AFAIK, each of my statements pertinent to this issue are fact based. In fact, I'd appreciate it if you could show me such a belief based statement regarding the technique and its use.

C & L is faster than the "israeli draw" every time hands down.

As I have said so many times before, though, speed is not the only concern here. There are other factors to consider than speed, and even if there is a speed difference it is rarely of any significance in real-world DGU incidents.

More specifically, a person carrying C&L will be able to hit a target faster than if they used the "israeli draw". That is provable and undisputable.

Having trained in the method, and having trained and tested many others, I will dispute it as I have seen it not to be true too many times. Yes, for most people with most guns it is an accurate statement., but there are way to many variables that enter into that to consider it an absolute.

A well trained marksman will hit the target twice in that time span.

And again, only if the event is framed in that tiny fraction of a second will that matter at all, and there are so many other factors that come into play in the real world that the fraction of a second becomes virtually irrelevant. And while I agree that it is good advice to assume your opponent will be as well- trained as you are (it is advice I give to others myself) it is also a fact that the overwhelming majority of gun owners and users are not well-trained, if they are trained at all, and that is something that must be taken into consideration, and thta is something that must be considered when discussing the relative effectiveness of a technique.

Having BTDT on several occasions and based on the experience of many of my LEO friends, being able to hit the target quickly is the most important factor. Whether you want to make that your prime criteria is up to you.

Also having BTDT quite a bit myself, I'd disagree. To me the most important factor is not to get hit yourself. Then we can worry about hitting the BG. But that is a belief issue, and I won't say you are wrong for selecting your criteria as you do. I would suggest you are wrong for apparently suggesting that is the only criteria that everyone should consider the most important all the time, however.

I was trained in the "israeli draw" by some SAS guys back in the '80's, so I have some experience with the technique.

OK, that should prove my point right there. Why was the SAS using that technique? Because it was best suited for them in their particular situation. And apparently they felt it good enough (effective) that they would train others in its use.

I would also argue that the millions of rounds I have fired C&L are relevant.

I agree. BTW, how many rounds did you fire using the other technique, just for comparison? Lots of folks don't carry C&L, they carry first shot DA, with a DA/SA set-up. That is a variable that can entrer into the equation, along with all those other things to consider that go far beyond how fast someone can speed-draw.