December 1, 2007, 03:33 AM | #51 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 5, 2004
Posts: 1,181
|
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. |
December 1, 2007, 04:03 AM | #52 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 16, 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 128
|
Quote:
__________________
" An interesting little toy but of no real value in warfare " - British general after being shown the new maxim gun. |
|
December 1, 2007, 07:56 AM | #53 | |
Junior member
Join Date: April 8, 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,769
|
Quote:
|
|
December 1, 2007, 09:46 AM | #54 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 17, 2005
Location: Swamp dweller
Posts: 6,187
|
Personal Safety
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.
__________________
NRA Life Member, NRA Chief Range Safety Officer, NRA Certified Pistol Instructor,, USPSA & Steel Challange NROI Range Officer, ICORE Range Officer, ,MAG 40 Graduate As you are, I once was, As I am, You will be. |
December 1, 2007, 05:27 PM | #55 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 16, 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 128
|
Creature
Quote:
__________________
" An interesting little toy but of no real value in warfare " - British general after being shown the new maxim gun. |
|
December 1, 2007, 06:01 PM | #56 | ||
Junior member
Join Date: January 24, 2005
Location: SW Louisiana
Posts: 2,289
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
December 1, 2007, 06:02 PM | #57 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 24, 1999
Location: America
Posts: 3,479
|
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?
__________________
Meriam Webster's: Main Entry: ci·vil·ian Pronunciation: \sə-ˈvil-yən also -ˈvi-yən\, Function: noun, Date: 14th century, 1: a specialist in Roman or modern civil law, 2 a: one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force b: outsider 1, — civilian adjective Last edited by Erik; December 1, 2007 at 07:36 PM. |
December 1, 2007, 06:20 PM | #58 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 24, 1999
Location: America
Posts: 3,479
|
"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?
__________________
Meriam Webster's: Main Entry: ci·vil·ian Pronunciation: \sə-ˈvil-yən also -ˈvi-yən\, Function: noun, Date: 14th century, 1: a specialist in Roman or modern civil law, 2 a: one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force b: outsider 1, — civilian adjective Last edited by Erik; December 1, 2007 at 07:37 PM. |
December 1, 2007, 08:58 PM | #59 | |
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,910
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
|
December 3, 2007, 01:53 PM | #60 | |
Junior member
Join Date: January 24, 2005
Location: SW Louisiana
Posts: 2,289
|
Quote:
|
|
December 3, 2007, 02:28 PM | #61 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 24, 1999
Location: America
Posts: 3,479
|
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.
__________________
Meriam Webster's: Main Entry: ci·vil·ian Pronunciation: \sə-ˈvil-yən also -ˈvi-yən\, Function: noun, Date: 14th century, 1: a specialist in Roman or modern civil law, 2 a: one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force b: outsider 1, — civilian adjective |
December 3, 2007, 03:18 PM | #62 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 2, 2004
Posts: 124
|
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.
|
December 3, 2007, 03:25 PM | #63 | |
Junior member
Join Date: January 24, 2005
Location: SW Louisiana
Posts: 2,289
|
Quote:
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. |
|
December 3, 2007, 04:26 PM | #64 |
Staff Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2001
Location: Prescott Valley, AZ
Posts: 2,422
|
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
__________________
S.W.A.T. Magazine Weapons, Training and Tactics for the Real World Join us at TFL or at AR15.com or on Facebook |
December 8, 2007, 05:05 PM | #65 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 24, 1999
Location: America
Posts: 3,479
|
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
__________________
Meriam Webster's: Main Entry: ci·vil·ian Pronunciation: \sə-ˈvil-yən also -ˈvi-yən\, Function: noun, Date: 14th century, 1: a specialist in Roman or modern civil law, 2 a: one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force b: outsider 1, — civilian adjective |
December 9, 2007, 04:39 PM | #66 |
Junior member
Join Date: January 24, 2005
Location: SW Louisiana
Posts: 2,289
|
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? |
December 9, 2007, 05:16 PM | #67 | |
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,910
|
Quote:
When autopistols really began to come into favor in LE they were almost invariably carried chamber loaded.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
|
December 9, 2007, 07:34 PM | #68 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 23, 1999
Posts: 498
|
David Armstrong:
Quote:
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.)” [color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color]?! 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.
__________________
Figure The Odds... Last edited by Chindo18Z; December 10, 2007 at 09:32 AM. |
|
December 9, 2007, 11:16 PM | #69 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 24, 1999
Location: America
Posts: 3,479
|
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.
__________________
Meriam Webster's: Main Entry: ci·vil·ian Pronunciation: \sə-ˈvil-yən also -ˈvi-yən\, Function: noun, Date: 14th century, 1: a specialist in Roman or modern civil law, 2 a: one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force b: outsider 1, — civilian adjective |
December 10, 2007, 01:39 PM | #70 | ||
Junior member
Join Date: January 24, 2005
Location: SW Louisiana
Posts: 2,289
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
December 10, 2007, 02:05 PM | #71 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 27, 2005
Location: Crescent Iowa
Posts: 2,971
|
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. |
December 10, 2007, 02:09 PM | #72 | |||||||||||||||
Junior member
Join Date: January 24, 2005
Location: SW Louisiana
Posts: 2,289
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||||||||||||
December 10, 2007, 02:25 PM | #73 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 3, 2006
Location: Brockport, NY
Posts: 3,715
|
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.
__________________
You are the bows from which your children as living arrows are sent forth. |
December 10, 2007, 02:27 PM | #74 | |
Junior member
Join Date: January 24, 2005
Location: SW Louisiana
Posts: 2,289
|
Quote:
|
|
December 10, 2007, 02:38 PM | #75 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 6, 2005
Location: North Chesterfield, Virginia
Posts: 4,765
|
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.
__________________
For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16 (NKJV) |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|