PDA

View Full Version : Why Israeli Carry Is A Bad Idea


Bartholomew Roberts
July 6, 2013, 04:32 AM
Another thread recently brought to my attention that some of our newer members feel it is practical to carry without a round chambered in the pistol. While that may occasionally be the best possible practice given the specific situation, I disagree that this is a good idea as a general practice and wanted to explain why without derailing the other thread.

First, let's look at why military commanders prefer that their troops not carry a round in the chamber. For many militaries, including our own, firearms training is minimal and what training there is concentrates on the use of the rifle. Pistols are simply way down the list and receive minimal time. If a soldier negligently shoots himself, that reflects poorly on the commander. If a soldier is shot by the enemy because he was chambering a round, that doesn't reflect badly on the commander at all. Given how rarely pistols are used and the limited time available for training recruits, the chances are a soldier with a round chambered and minimal training is probably more likely to negligently shoot something than be shot trying to access a pistol. As an additional bonus, if your military has a diverse collection of different pistols, carrying in Condition 3 (magazine loaded, no round chambered) allows you to teach recruits a single manual of arms that works for every pistol regardless of where the safety is located on a pistol or whether it is activated by pushing in, sweeping up, or flipping down.

As a Concealed Handgun Licensee (CHL) though, you have different priorities. First, you are responsible only for yourself and your immediate family. You can devote the resources necessary to learning how to carry a pistol safely with a round chambered. Additionally, it is just as bad for you whether you are shot through your own negligence or through enemy action. Finally, the odds that you are using a different pistol with a different manual of arms are much less and something you have control over. Basically all of the reasons that make Israeli Carry an arguably necessary evil for some militaries, do not exist for CHLs. For a CHL, the only reasons to carry in Condition 3 are if you are improperly trained or you have an older firearm that cannot be safely carried in Condition 1.

If you are improperly trained or have a firearm in poor condition, then Condition 3 is probably a good choice until those problems can be remedied. However, shootings can and do occur where even those of you who practice a blistering fast draw and presentation are going to have difficulty chambering a round. Some examples:

Example #1: Man is playing poker with friends when game is robbed. Robber discovers man's holster while collecting wallets and gunfight ensues. Man is shot in both the right and left hand before he can return fire; but still manages to hit the robber and chase him off: http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/988015_.html&page=1

Example #2: Man is filling up car at gas station when he is approached by two men who begin talking casually to him and then attack him. His loaded Glock is in the center console of his car. This one has video so you can watch the guy trying to hang on with one hand and grab his gun with the other as the bad guy is trying to drag him out of his car. He also gives his thoughts on carrying with a round chambered: http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=454970

Example #3: Man is coming home from visiting sick relative when three men approach him and shout "Give it up!" and then immediately begin firing. He is hit twice in the abdomen and once in the left hand; but draws and returns fire, chasing away his attackers: http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=421065

csmsss
July 6, 2013, 11:36 AM
I can think of another very good reason to always carry with one up the pipe - if you are in a SD situation, it's very possible you will have the use of only one hand - fending off an attacker, for example. Unless you are reaching for a revolver, that handgun is absolutely useless without the use of both hands (except as a club, of course).

GM1967
July 6, 2013, 11:51 AM
This is also why I'm not crazy about manual safeties. When carrying for self-defense, it is very likely that when you need your gun, you will need it right now, and not in a couple of seconds. Chambering a round or properly disengaging a manual safety in a time-critical situation can get you killed. There are plenty of guns out there (SIG, Glock, Springfield XD, etc) that do away with that manual safety and can be safely carried.

As for the point made by the poster above, about possibly only having one hand, well, it is possible to chamber a round in a handgun with only one hand, by snagging the rear sight against something and using that for leverage to work the slide. Not a recommended technique, and possibly unsafe, but possible if the situation requires it.

I definitely agree that chamber-empty carry is usually a bad idea. Too many disadvantages, not enough advantages when using modern guns.

Frank Ettin
July 6, 2013, 11:57 AM
...disengaging a manual safety in a time-critical situation can get you killed ...Not necessarily. If you're properly trained and practiced the safety on a 1911 or Browning High Power will be disengaged during the early stages of the presentation before the gun is even on target.

manta49
July 6, 2013, 12:10 PM
First, let's look at why military commanders prefer that their troops not carry a round in the chamber. For many militaries, including our own, firearms training is minimal and what training there is concentrates on the use of the rifle Do you think that all the people carrying a firearm have extensive training on handguns. Judging by some of the posts on this forum by people not even knowing what SA/DA is I wouldn't want to be within a mile of them if they were carrying a handgun with a round in the chamber. Its not just a matter of self defence its also people not shooting themselves or someone else. So from that point of view if there is not a round in the chamber they can't accidentally shoot someone and if they do need the firearm they can put a round in the chamber in around a second. So in my opinion carry whatever way you feel comfortable with and don't let other people tell you how to carry your handgun.

SgtLumpy
July 6, 2013, 12:27 PM
I don't think that "all the people carrying a firearm have extensive training on handguns", no. But I don't think that carrying a 1911 unloaded is a solution to that. Nor do I think that knowing not to point a gun at someone and pulling the trigger is "extensive training". Nor do I think that knowing what SA/DA means is a measure of expertise.

In real world terms, I think that an untrained or unsure person, with an unloaded 1911 is more dangerous than one that's cocked and locked. If they have to rack the slide, and they are as you suggest "not extensively trained" I think it's REALLY likely that they'll have their finger on the boom lever. If it's cocked and locked they CANNOT fire it until they flip that safety down. But make them rack the slide and they can fire it prematurely, while racking, while trying to come up on target etc.


On soldiers - If a soldier/marine/sailor/airman is in a position where he's moved from his long gun to his M9, that M9 is then placed into DA mode with a round in the bbl. MPs and chasers walking around base aren't clearing rooms or looking for armed insurgents. But the moment they are, they change to "round in the pipe" mode. Civilians aren't typically in that kind of safe situation, surrounded by a barbed wire fence, all visitors identified etc. We (civi's) aren't moving from one state of readiness to the other. We are always (we should be always) in the state of ready.

- BUT -

I do agree with you about one thing. Carry in the manner in which you feel comfortable.


Sgt Lumpy

ClydeFrog
July 6, 2013, 12:27 PM
I toted a few sidearms; condition III(empty chamber, safety on, loaded pistol magazine) while on active duty in the US Army(MPs/95B now called 31B).
I worked on force protection details & LE missions(called law & order in the US Army) with my sidearm in this condition.
I didn't feel unsafe or untrained but if I had any reason to feel the need to load my M9, Id load it then return the ambi-safety lever.
To me, condition I or "cocked & locked"/round in the chamber is the most practical way to carry a sidearm or CC weapon.
For most open carry or uniformed security details, I prefer a 9x19mm with a ambi safety(frame mounted). Walther or slide type safety controls are slow & awkward to use in a lethal force event. The 2 96 series pistols I owned were both D or DA only models with no manual safety features.
A safety engaged can assist you if you need weapon retention or prevent ADs(using pistol safes/access to "sterile" areas).

The IDF(Israeli Defense Forces) method seems to have appeal because of the densely populated areas & narrow streets the police, armed security & IDF troops sometimes may be in. A CQB event with a unarmed subject or a angry protestor could turn quickly into a weapon snatch. Condition III would be much safer in those events.
To me, a concealed pistol may not need a safety lever but it should be DA only or have at least a 5lb smooth trigger pull.

manta49
July 6, 2013, 12:37 PM
In real world terms, I think that an untrained or unsure person, with an unloaded 1911 is more dangerous than one that's cocked and locked. If they have to rack the slide, and they are as you suggest "not extensively trained" I think it's REALLY likely that they'll have their finger on the boom lever. If it's cocked and locked they CANNOT fire it until they flip that safety down. But make them rack the slide and they can fire it prematurely, while racking, while trying to come up on target etc. You say about proper training people can be trained to safely carry and use a firearm in either condition. And some people can be dangerous trained or not.

Nor do I think that knowing what SA/DA means is a measure of expertise.
I think knowing how your firearm operates and how the trigger system works on your firearm is fundamental to using it safely and proficiently. And much more important on how you carry it with or without a round in the chamber.

Onward Allusion
July 6, 2013, 12:49 PM
I haven't always carried on a regular basis. I carry with one in the pipe and no safety. That is now my preferred method of my pistols these days. Out of the holster or nightstand drawer and pull the trigger.

However, up until a few years ago I'd carry with an empty chamber - even in a holster. It really depends on how proficient and comfortable a person is with firearms and carrying them. It's also good to understand the advantages and disadvantages of each method, because to simply say carrying in condition 3 is like carrying an empty gun is untrue. There are occasions that warrant carrying in condition 3. Holster-less pocket carry or waistband carry, for example.

Webleymkv
July 6, 2013, 01:01 PM
When considering the Israeli technique, one must remember how and why the Israelis developed it. The reason was that, at the time, the Israelis were using a hodge podge of handguns with safeties that operated different ways. The Israeli method was developed because it allowed one technique to be taught that would work with the vast majority of semi-automatic pistols.

For most of us, however, we only need to learn how to operate one type of handgun. Because of this, I don't think that the Israeli method is typically the best technique because of the afformentioned reasons. The only instances in which I'd consider using the Israeli method myself would be if my gun had a safety which was difficult or awkward to operate, the safety was not positive enough to be relied upon, or the pistol was unsafe to carry with the chamber loaded due to the lack of a safety (the Tokarev is the only pistol I can think of which fits this category). Of course, if my gun fit one of those three categories, I'd probably be more concerned with finding a more suitable pistol.

Bartholomew Roberts
July 6, 2013, 01:32 PM
Do you think that all the people carrying a firearm have extensive training on handguns.

No, that is why I added the caveat about insufficient training being a good reason to carry in Condition 3. However ultimately, I don't think continuing to carry a gun while poorly trained is a good long term solution. At some point, you need to make the choice to not carry or get trained for competent carry.

Bartholomew Roberts
July 6, 2013, 01:38 PM
Onward Allusion raises a good point about some types of improvised holsterless carry (pocket or Mexican) being safer in Condition 3, even with a good quality firearm in good condition. I didn't think about that because it has been a long time since I've carried without a holster; but I would definitely want to carry a Glock or similar action pistol in Condition 3 in those circumstances.

SgtLumpy
July 6, 2013, 02:25 PM
You say about proper training people can be trained to safely carry and use a firearm in either condition. And some people can be dangerous trained or not.

I'm getting really confused. Manta, you want to use the "He's untrained so he should carry unloaded" argument. Now you want to use the "Trained people should be able to safely carry in either condition" argument.

I say, trained or not - Carrying a 1911 in a condition that requires you to cycle the slide is MORE dangerous than carrying it cocked and locked.

And again, YOU or anyone, should carry in a manner in which they feel is safe.


Sgt Lumpy

jager.30-06
July 6, 2013, 03:16 PM
^OP, AGREED!

Husqvarna
July 6, 2013, 03:57 PM
The Nordic armies changed to the Israeli method a couple of years ago and since then ND/AD have dropped considerably!

People take more care I guess.

FireForged
July 6, 2013, 04:07 PM
I have never carried on an empty chamber and seriously doubt I ever will. All that being said, I am not inclined to believe that even 20% of SD shootings ever boil down to [speed of draw] determining the winner. Most SD shootings are not [ stick-em up!] from the bushes and men no longer call each other out into the street and yell [draw!]

I say if people want to carry on an empty chamber, let them. My hope is that they have trained around that decision and have practiced [ draw-rack-fire]. The idea that a person carrying on an empty chamber is somehow doomed to fail in a confrontation is not intellectually honest. Survival depends on a great many things. Could it depends on speed of draw? sure... Is that typical? nah

Deaf Smith
July 6, 2013, 05:59 PM
As I have posted many a time....

Several advantages for chamber carry plus a few disadvantages.

1) Simplicity. No need to add another step to get the weapon in action.

2) Immediate first shot in the shortest time period, especially from retention position (that is grabbing distance.)

3) No need for two hands to chamber. You may have one hand hurt or busy and not be able to use two hands.

Grappling with an attacker also makes chambering with two hands rather tough. Opponent may slam you to the ground, or grab the weapon, or just punch you while you try to chamber a round.


4) When under pressure you might short stroke the action and jam the weapon.

The downside is that if you forget the gun is loaded you can pull the trigger and have a AD/ND (but then, just KYFFOTFT till the weapon is on target.) Yes there are AD/NDs every year. No doubt many have their weapons chamber loaded, but then many are ‘cleaning’ their weapons and well, who knows what state their weapons was really in.

Now chamber empty (C3) has a few advantages.

1) A gun snatch will give you a few seconds for the BG to react (you hope) to get the weapon back.


2) If you have kids, and the slide is hard to rack, it's less chancy of they get the gun somehow (but then I feel you should just pick the gun up, ok.)

3) If your gun is not drop safe, then chamber empty is the best way to carry.

4) No safe way to carry the weapon (lack of holster, poor holster, etc..)

5) If you tend to take your gun out and play with it instead of keeping it holstered then C3 might be a better way to carry. (not kidding, there are people that do mess with their weapons like that.)

Overall, chamber empty is an inferior technique for most people.

There are some where it serves a purpose like having the weapon hidden around the house and you have time to chamber a round, but for most, chamber loaded is the better technique for a defensive handgun.

Now why is C3 inferior?

Because of the extra steps one has to take that mostly require two hands under very stressful conditions.

Yes I am aware you can chamber one handed but can one do this quickly and reliably adverse conditions? I do mean quick and reliable, say when grapping with an attacker? Or with various simi-autos that are produced now?

Or in the rain? Or while moving? I doubt it.

One doubts it, right? Doing a one handed rack on a square range on a sunny day isn't the same thing as on the street when things are going down hill quickly.

Is chamber empty safer to carry in the light of ND/ADs?

It is difficult so see how it is safer if you keep the weapon in a proper holster that covers the trigger guard and has adequate retention (in case of a fall or such) and don/doff with the weapon in the holster.

That way the trigger cannot be pulled in any way.

But wither one carries their weapon C1 or C3, it is very important to train to be safe.

If you cannot keep your weapon holstered until needed, don't carry C1, and if you tend to fumble chambering a weapon fast, don't carry C3 (and for BOTH C1 and C3, if you can't keep your finger off the trigger until the need to fire, leave the gun home!) Training is the most important part.

Ignorance is what causes AD/NDs, not the state of the weapon.

Deaf

markj
July 9, 2013, 04:38 PM
Always felt that the 1911 would be best slapped alongside the temple :)

it works too.


I carry mine condition 1 when I carry. Like hunting, you got one in the chamber or you may miss the shot.

altho some should not be allowed to even look at a gun....

Rifleman1776
July 10, 2013, 08:58 AM
This is also why I'm not crazy about manual safeties. When carrying for self-defense, it is very likely that when you need your gun, you will need it right now,

Perzactly. :)
That is one of the reasons why I so much like my Walther-styled American Arms PX-22. It is a DA/SA and has a transfer bar safety. Chambered with the hammer down it is as safe a carry, point and shoot as a gun can be. I never engage the hammer block safety. No reason to and in a SD situation could cause delays with unfortunate results.

Doug S
July 10, 2013, 09:45 AM
Growing up in a rural area where every boy wanted to hunt, at 12yrs old we took our "Hunters Safety Course". That simple, basic course instilled in me the acute knowledge to always be conscious of where my finger was in relation to the trigger (and to keep my finger off it until I was ready to pull it), whether my gun was loaded or unloaded (and the need to sometimes set the gun aside, and/unload), and to consider what was beyond my shot (and be sure that it was a proper back stop. Now, with that said, I'm of the mind that every person should choose what they feel safest doing, and do that without worrying aqbout what the rest of us think, but this idea that gun safety requires some sort of extensive, formal training is literally childish (child-like mentality) IMO. If a person can't get it through their thick head to be conscious and alert concerning gun safety (without having to enroll in university), they shouldn't be "playing" with a gun. The fact that some militaries can't train men as well as a hunters safety course can train a group of 12 year old boys is mind-boggling to me. Now before anyone decides to argue semantics with me, of course accidents can and do happen (and society is full of morons who magnify the fact), but that does not change the basic sentiment I am attempting to express here.

deepcreek
July 10, 2013, 10:39 AM
I could see why armies do "Israel carry" you are dealing with many people who do not have that much experience handling handguns. i have read some stats where armies have had more accidental shootings then actual combat shootings.

Strafer Gott
July 10, 2013, 02:10 PM
I think C3 went away with the switch from 1911's to Berettas. Honest fellas, those that the army had were shot out worn down pos. No way would I trust it to stay locked. C3 with a G.I. flap holster converted to loaded and cocked on the draw. I think anyone who wore an MP brassard in that time frame could present ready to go faster than I suppose many of you can imagine.
Just as you can cycle the action on your heel, the flap holster with the shelf works just the same, and with practice, Bob's your uncle.

JerryM
July 10, 2013, 07:12 PM
If I did not intend to carry with a loaded chamber, I would not carry. If you come under attack time will be important. If one is so unfamiliar with his gun that he doesn't carry one in the chamber, I doubt he will be good enough to work the action and get into action in the time needed.


Practice with the gun until operation is second nature, and that safety is always practiced. If not then maybe a revolver is the way to go.

Jerry

Glenn E. Meyer
July 11, 2013, 08:14 AM
Does anyone who carries a modern revolver or uses one for home SD, have it load such that first trigger pull lands on an empty chamber?

Just curious. Is the issue just trigger pull? Human factors research shows that under stress you can ND a DA/SA or DAO semi quite easily.

seeker_two
July 11, 2013, 08:34 AM
Only reason to have an auto in C3 is when it's being stored off-body, such as in a safe or a nightstand. Having that extra step is safer when you're waking up.

If the gun is on your person, it needs to be in C1 or C2, dependant on the design of your auto.

GM1967: the grip safety on a XD is a manual safety....it is just one that is easier to disengage than other types.

Strafer Gott
July 11, 2013, 08:48 AM
My point is that the 1911 was way past meaningful maintenance and had to be carried C3 for safety's sake. If you have never had a 1911 so worn out that it wouldn't stay locked, you don't have a complete experience set. I don't know anyone who even remotely suggests cocked but not locked is safe carry.
Sure you still have a grip safety, but all the weapon familiarity you could possibly acquire won't make it safe. So pontificate all you want. If the old man said carry that way, that's the way you carried. And that's the name of that tune. If you think that was dumb, we were still trained to shoot the M16 dry, that is sans lube. You wouldn't believe the arguments about that one!

Deaf Smith
July 11, 2013, 02:20 PM
If you have never had a 1911 so worn out that it wouldn't stay locked

That makes it a defective gun, and thus one NOT TO CARRY.

If it won't stay locked, FIX IT.

Deaf

seeker_two
July 11, 2013, 02:35 PM
That makes it a defective gun, and thus one NOT TO CARRY.

If it won't stay locked, FIX IT.


...or replace it with a Beretta like the military did.... :D

SgtLumpy
July 11, 2013, 03:18 PM
How do they carry their M9s in the military today? Round in chamber, hammer down ready for first shot dbl action?


Sgt Lumpy

Al Thompson
July 12, 2013, 09:20 AM
SGT L., depends on the unit, the mission and the place. We had one commander dictate carrying the M9 in Condition 3, even out and about.

:rolleyes:

SgtLumpy
July 12, 2013, 11:09 AM
The military version Beretta, does the safety/de-cocker function as only a decocker (momentary) or can it stay in the down/safety/unable to fire position?

I know the 92s came with both variants.


Sgt Lumpy

Deaf Smith
July 12, 2013, 06:15 PM
The military version Beretta, does the safety/de-cocker function as only a decocker (momentary) or can it stay in the down/safety/unable to fire position?

Does not matter. It has a firing pin lock.

Hammer down is 100 percent safe with the M9.

1911's, of GI standard, don't have a firing pin lock and can be fired if dropped on the muzzle.

Deaf

SgtLumpy
July 12, 2013, 06:51 PM
I'm not asking if it matters.

Does the military Baretta come with a decocker only or a decocker/safety?


Sgt Lumpy

Deaf Smith
July 12, 2013, 10:15 PM
I believe the slide mounted decocker does stay down and has to be manually raised for firing.

Deaf

SgtLumpy
July 12, 2013, 10:39 PM
OK. Every cop I know that carries a 92 hates the safety version of that lever. The decocker version decocks but then spring load returns to the ready to fire dbl action position. It's in a really odd spot and pivots from the rear compared to a 1911 which pivots from the front. Not very ergonomic.

I just didn't know if the military version had that same goofy thing or if they used the decocker only version.


Sgt Lumpy

Al Thompson
July 13, 2013, 06:59 AM
Does the military Baretta come with a decocker only or a decocker/safety?

Safety. You have to manually manipulate the lever either down (Safe) or up (Fire).

SgtLumpy
July 13, 2013, 09:55 AM
Thank you, Al T


Sgt Lumpy

Deaf Smith
July 13, 2013, 01:49 PM
The trick with using the Beretta (actually S&W and Walther used the same method) safety is to flick it off when bringing your hand down to draw the weapon. Don't flick it off after drawing it was it's awkward.

But while the hand comes down on the grip, flick the safety off with your thumb. Then grasp the gun and draw it.

Works quite well.

Deaf

SgtLumpy
July 13, 2013, 01:57 PM
Or simply carry it in dbl action ready to fire condition, decocker NOT locked down. I guess it's the 92G model that has the momentary decocker lever.


Sgt Lumpy

ClydeFrog
July 13, 2013, 10:56 PM
Gun writer & tactics instructor; Massad Ayoob wrote in a recent(2011/2012) article that US Army troops carry the M9 9mmNATO, safety on empty chamber with a 15rd M9 magazine.
He said the USAF Security Forces(what were SPs) do the same on most bases; empty chamber safety on loaded pistol magazine.
They may have "cruiser" ready Mossberg or 870 pump 12ga shotguns or M4 5.56mm rifles(loaded magazines; 30-40rds)

Note; in CONUS, the MPs(and I think the SFs or Navy SPs/shore patrol) no longer conduct LE operations(Law & Order). This new DA(Dept of the Army) memorandum came out in 2012.
General security & LE details are done by 083 police officers(federal employees) or private contract security(PSCs).
They are armed & trained but can not enforce the UCMJ(Uniform Code of Military Justice).
Overseas(USFK, Japan, Italy, Europe, Africa, etc) MPs & SFs still have LE powers.

SgtLumpy
July 14, 2013, 01:19 AM
Did Mas say why?

Empty chamber AND safety engaged? That sounds really weird.


Sgt Lumpy

Model12Win
July 14, 2013, 01:39 AM
Yeah Air Force cops carry like that, at least with an empty chamber.

pmeisel
July 14, 2013, 07:52 AM
Most USAF Security Forces duty does not put them in a situation where they expect to be surprised -- they have time to react.

In combat or imminent threat situations, they will usually have another weapon that they are using.

pete2
July 14, 2013, 09:40 AM
The only thing I'd carry with an empty chamber is the Colt Model P.

Deaf Smith
July 14, 2013, 01:25 PM
Sgt,

I have no doubt bureaucrats, who have never been in combat, made the regulations on chamber empty and safety engaged. That was to protect them, not the GI.

Long time ago a friend of mine who was a MP (along with his wife) in Louisiana. He came back to recruit at the high schools. He was scheduled to speak at one of them and he asked me for a 1911 magazine to put in his gun.

Yes they issued him a gun and holster but NOT ANY MAGAZINES. SOP was, when off the base doing what he was doing, to have no magazines. Of course that looked pretty stupid in front of a bunch of Texas high schoolers who knew enough to see the gun was empty.

So I let him borrow a Colt blued 1911 mag so his 1911A1 looked like it should.

The bureaucrats just decided that was safer (not chamber empty, not all magazines empty, but NO MAGAZINE!)

So I have no doubt in the AF they say chamber empty and safety on. The GI at the gate is merely a trip wire to the higher ups and once alerted the real security will come forth.

Deaf

SgtLumpy
July 14, 2013, 01:33 PM
I have no doubt bureaucrats, who have never been in combat, made the regulations on chamber empty and safety engaged. That was to protect them, not the GI.

I'm sure you're absolutely right. Seems odd, though, that Massad Ayoob would have that opinion.


Sgt Lumpy

Deaf Smith
July 14, 2013, 04:05 PM
Mas says to carry chamber empty with safety on?

Deaf

SgtLumpy
July 14, 2013, 06:52 PM
I probably misread, my sorry. I thought Mas was recommending carrying an M9 as empty chamber, safety on. I re-read clyde's post. I guess Mas wasn't recommending (hope he wasn't recommending!) that. I can't imagine that he would.


Sgt Lumpy

Deaf Smith
July 14, 2013, 07:08 PM
Well I can assure you Mas would not say that. I've had his LFI-1 class and read virtually everything he as written. C1 is defiantly the way he thinks.

But the AF is the AF so I can see some carrier minded general who would not want an AD?ND to tarnish his reputation to order all guns carried to be inoperable. Even in Afghanistan lots of brass insist all guns be unloaded inside the green line.

John Farnam has written alot about this problem and has convinced alot of Marine officers to allow them to carry their weapons fully loaded. But that is just the Marines and certain members of the brass.

Deaf

Skans
July 17, 2013, 05:07 PM
I carry a DAO, so there is no reason for a manual safety or to NOT carry with a round chambered. For defense, I'm a firm believer in DA/SA or DAO for that reason.

MLeake
July 17, 2013, 10:43 PM
With regard to military use, when I carried an M9, it was normally (directed by higher) chamber empty, hammer down, safety on safe.

However, when or if we left the base (in a threat region), the M9 (and M4) were changed to chamber loaded, safety on safe; loading barrels were used.

Rounds were removed from chambers (again via loading barrels) upon return to base.

Bean counters seem to think that on base, the risks of personnel injuring themselves via poor gun handling is higher than the risk of actual attack. (Of course, the loading barrels absorb the occasional ND.)

Dragline45
July 17, 2013, 10:43 PM
Did Mas say why?

Empty chamber AND safety engaged? That sounds really weird.

I'm going to bet this is only for when they are on base since the military is so crazy about when and where you can have a loaded weapon and in what condition it has to be carried. I'm assuming that the reasoning for carrying with empty chamber and the safety in the on position is based on the Beretta having a hammer drop safety, so when chambering a round with the safety engaged as the slide returns to battery it automatically drops the hammer. So when you do disengage the safety you now have a chambered round but with a DA trigger as opposed to chambering a round with the safety off and having the SA trigger for your first pull. In the military's thinking if a soldier suddenly had to grab their pistols and chamber a round, they don't want them running around base with a SA trigger in case of a AD/ND. Of course this is all speculation but it's about the only sense I could make of it.

MLeake
July 17, 2013, 10:44 PM
The question I have, with regard to VOLUNTARY Israeli carry, is why not just carry a DA revolver?

I'd rather run less ammo capacity, than have to worry about getting a gun up and running under immediate threat conditions.

JohnKSa
July 17, 2013, 10:46 PM
Or simply carry it in dbl action ready to fire condition, decocker NOT locked down.I do not carry an 92FS, but if I did, that is how I would carry it. HOWEVER, I would also practice ALWAYS bumping the decocker lever upwards from the safe position upon presentation to the target. That's because the safety can be engaged accidentally, particularly during malfunction drills or reloads when the slide is manipulated.

For what it's worth, disengaging the 92FS safety is very easy and quick. You simply bump the lever forward and upward with the thumb "knuckle" of the strong hand. In practice it's a very similar motion to wiping off a downward frame mounted safety.I guess it's the 92G model that has the momentary decocker lever.That is correct, and the "G" style operation is my preference in DA/SA pistols.

Quincunx
July 20, 2013, 08:12 AM
The question I have, with regard to VOLUNTARY Israeli carry, is why not just carry a DA revolver?

I'd rather run less ammo capacity, than have to worry about getting a gun up and running under immediate threat conditions.

Exactly.

ClydeFrog
July 20, 2013, 01:08 PM
Massad Ayoob was discussing US armed forces SOPs & DoD policy, not his own class SOPs or doctrine.

I'm no longer on active duty, but I've read & seen a few reports from SW Asia that the FOBs(forward operating bases) & HQs had strict SOPs to prevent ADs/shootings.
There were a few cases of troops who would "wig out" & start shooting, :eek:.
Clearing barrels & arms room policy may vary but in general, the US armed forces are very veery of trusting service members with small arms outside of missions.

Clyde

tmorone
July 20, 2013, 02:47 PM
Currently, standard Air Force ops are: round chambered, de-cocked and safety off.

I can speak to that from personal experience. In the past it may have been an empty chamber but thats not the way we operate now- can't speak for the other branches of service though.

Sharpsdressed Man
July 20, 2013, 05:36 PM
There are many philosophies of carry/preparedness out there, and the someone who wants every speed advantage would want to carry a 1911 type pistol in Condition 1 (cocked and locked). However, others have different takes on the subject, and may value a higher degree of safety against accidents, etc. Since most of us (probably better than 99%) will never be in a fast draw response to an armed threat, the likelihood of NEEDING the weapon to be in Condition 0 or Condition 1 is probably moot. Even cops rarely have to "draw and fire" with little to no hint of a threat, and in the 20 years that I policed, I probably had my gun out already, or would have had time to chamber a round, had my gun been in Condition 3, etc. The theory is sound, but the reality of a quick draw, split second response is rarely encountered, especially if one develops a tactical sense of awareness. That is WAY more valuable than a round in the chamber. Since retired, and having carried some vintage guns in Condition 3, I do not feel greatly handicapped, given my level of experience or awareness. Just having the gun, PERIOD, puts me in a better position than 95% of the population.

Bartholomew Roberts
July 20, 2013, 05:52 PM
People keep harping on the time angle; however, the one unifying theme of the three actual real shootings I linked to was that the defenders did not have two uninjured hands free for the draw.

None of the three people in those links were living high risk lifestyles where they had a high probability of assault, let alone a high probability of needing to use a gun immediately and one handed; but it happened - and people get pegged in the hands quite a bit in the force-on-force I've done.

You can use a lot of training time working on a blistering fast Condition 3 draw; but you are still going to need two hands for that. And that time difference between Condition 1 and 3 may be quite a bit more than you planned for once you have to execute it with one hand.

Sharpsdressed Man
July 20, 2013, 10:30 PM
So, you have references to three shootings that, after debriefing and gathering the facts, indicated that utilizing the "Israeli Method" had caused failure due to the loss of one hand during the incident. The problem with stats, as I see it, is seldom would you be able to gather data on SUCCESSFUL use of the technique because there would be little need to break down a successful shooting, nor any reason to draw attention to that kind of detail. Care to render a guess as to how many shootings, or uses of a gun, MIGHT have been accomplished successfully IF the Israeli Method had been used? Go to the "Armed Citizen" column in the American Rifleman each month, and see the incidents where the citizen responded with a gun, and note if he/she would have had time to chamber a round while responding. Probably a better indicated than the number three out of (who knows how many). As I said earlier, most concerned, gunfighting minded folk will choose Condition 1. Some will not, and have their reasons.

SgtLumpy
July 20, 2013, 11:38 PM
I see the options like this -

1) NO police agency in the US carries Israeli method. At least none that I've ever heard of. If they do, they're not following the FBI National Curriculum and they're probably doing what happens in #2 below. I'm quite certain it's no individual cop's preference to carry in IM.

2) SOME military units carry in the IM, apparently due to some commanding officer thinking it's safer, local politics, etc.

3) SOME civilians that CCW carry in the IM, apparently because they think it's safer from accidental and/or negligent discharges.

4) NO civilians that CCW carry in the IM because they think it's faster or more accurate. It's always based on reducing what they see as a chance that they will do something accidently or negligently wrong.


So for OUR purposes (civilians) doesn't the answer simply boil down to "Carry however you think you are safe"? If you don't feel safe cocked and locked then don't. The endless "I think it is" vs "I think it isn't" is meaningless.

Here's a phrase you'll never hear on a discussion forum -
"Hey, I read over your opinions. I've decided I was wrong and I'm going to start doing what you suggest"


Sgt Lumpy

JohnKSa
July 20, 2013, 11:56 PM
The problem with stats, as I see it, is seldom would you be able to gather data on SUCCESSFUL use of the technique because there would be little need to break down a successful shooting, nor any reason to draw attention to that kind of detail.The post you made that BR responded to was focused on the speed difference in the two techniques and was oriented towards making a case that the speed difference wasn't really a pressing requirement.

BR responded that the speed requirement wasn't, in his opinion, the primary reason for avoiding C3 carry, citing 3 cases where injured hands would have greatly complicated the defender's situation had they chosen C3 carry.

You respond that in your opinion, in most cases, C3 carry is ok because there's sufficient time to deal with the exigencies of C3 successfully.

That's all well and good, but that doesn't address the point BR made. There was no claim that C3 carry is complicated by an injured hand in most cases, nor did he attempt to counter your claim that the time issue isn't significant. His post was merely pointing out that focusing on the time difference (the primary focus of both your initial and second post) misses the point that whether or not time is an issue, hand injuries certainly can be an issue and demonstrably are an issue in some cases.

It's possible to take that one more step and consider cases where both hands are uninjured but one hand might be otherwise occupied and wouldn't be readily available to rack the slide. Here's a list of reasonable and likely tasks that might occupy the defender's other hand are:

Pushing the attacker away.
Holding a light, phone or other object.
Opening a door.
Controlling a child in a home defense scenario.

That said, it's probably worth addressing your comments about likely scenarios. The Armed Citizen is full of stories where people actually go retrieve a gun from a storage location and then use it in self-defense. If we model our defensive scenarios after the "typical" Armed Citizen incident then we would be driven to the conclusion that there's no need to carry a gun at all, and even if we have one, we might as well store it unloaded because we will likely have time to go find it and load it if we need to.

So why don't we use the "typical" Armed Citizen scenario? A couple of reasons.

First of all, and most importantly, The Armed Citizen is intended to highlight SUCCESSUL self defense stories. They don't list the incidents in which the defender died (or worse) because he or she couldn't retrieve and employ a firearm in time to use it.

Second, we have a plethora of information available to us beyond the very limited stories and information available from The Armed Citizen. It makes sense to use that information.Some will not, and have their reasons.Forums are about discussing those reasons. Having a reason is one thing. Having a good reason, or a well thought-out reason is another thing entirely. All of us have brains, just like Albert Einstein had a brain, but that fact clearly doesn't mean everyone's brain is as good as his was.

Frank Ettin
July 21, 2013, 12:10 AM
...Since most of us (probably better than 99%) will never be in a fast draw response to an armed threat, the likelihood of NEEDING the weapon to be in Condition 0 or Condition 1 is probably moot....This is fallacious reasoning. The likelihood of needing a gun and the likelihood of either needing it quickly or having a hand free to operate the slide and chamber a round are independent variables.

It may be very unlikely that you will ever need your gun. But it is considerably more likely that if you do need it you will need it quickly or need to put it to use with one hand.

So, you have references to three shootings that, after debriefing and gathering the facts, indicated that utilizing the "Israeli Method" had caused failure due to the loss of one hand during the incident. The problem with stats, as I see it, is seldom would you be able to gather data on SUCCESSFUL use of the technique because there would be little need to break down a successful shooting,...More fallacious reasoning. If you need two hands but don't have two hands available, the outcome will be very unsatisfactory for you. If that's the case, it will be small comfort to you that perhaps that odds were against the situation occurring.

In any case, there is reason to believe that the use of one hand to manage one's pistol in a violent encounter isn't that uncommon. Looking at the NYPD annual Firearm Discharge Reports for 2007 (http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/public_information/2007_firearms_discharge_report.pdf), 2009 (http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/analysis_and_planning/AFDR200920101101.pdf), 2010 (http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/analysis_and_planning/afdr_20111116.pdf) and 2011 (http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/analysis_and_planning/nypd_annual_firearms_discharge_report_2011.pdf), officers firing their handguns in the course of a violent encounter used one hand 30%, 38%, 50% and 29%, respectively, of the time. So at least the officers of the NYPD had occasion to use their pistols with only one hand a substantial portion of the time.

...Go to the "Armed Citizen" column in the American Rifleman each month, and see the incidents where the citizen responded with a gun, and note if he/she would have had time to chamber a round while responding...I've read that column regularly for years and have seldom seen sufficient information to allow one to reasonably draw any such inference one way or another.

In any case:

The point of a fast draw is not speed for its own sake. It's simply that if you do need your gun, you have no way to know in advance how much time you'll have in which to put it to use.


When it comes down to it, it's really not a question of quick draw or fast draw. It's a question of how long it can take us to perceive the threat, determine the need to fire, deploy our gun and engage the threat with accurate fire, having made the decision that shooting is warranted.


So how much time will we have in which to do all of that? I have no idea and neither do you. It's going to all depend on what happens and how it happens. We might have lots of time, or we might have very little. We simply can't know in advance.


If we can't get done what we need to do in the time circumstances allow us, we will not be happy with the outcome. Good training and diligent practice can help reduce the time we need to be able to effectively do what we need to be able to do. And since I can't know how much time I'll have, I'd rather not give up time if I can avoid it.


How to carry one's gun is, of course, a personal matter. But one is fooling himself if he insists that carrying without a round in the chamber does not put himself at a disadvantage.

Deaf Smith
July 21, 2013, 11:53 AM
Well folks ask your self this...

If you carried you gun in C3, could you have chambered a round while being straddled and pummeled?

Just wondering as to me that is a good example WHY you carry C1.

Deaf

OuTcAsT
July 21, 2013, 03:39 PM
could you have chambered a round while being straddled and pummeled?

I think most anyone, who has ever been in a fist fight will answer NO.

The bottom line is, carrying with a unchambered round is basically, carrying an unloaded firearm. If the need for it arises, you are more likely to need it immediately, rather than later. This is much like hanging an empty bucket in your kitchen, instead of a fire extinguisher.

A carried, defensive firearm, with an unchambered round, is nothing more than an expensive "club" at best.

Sharpsdressed Man
July 21, 2013, 09:29 PM
While straddled and pummeled, having an "expensive club" might be useful, and you wouldn't have to worry about it going off when you whack the guy in the face with it.:) You could always rack the slide later, when he is trying to see past the stars.

Dragline45
July 21, 2013, 09:55 PM
could you have chambered a round while being straddled and pummeled?

It would be hard enough just drawing your firearm let alone racking the slide.

OuTcAsT
July 21, 2013, 10:37 PM
You could always rack the slide later, when he is trying to see past the stars.

Me thinks you are counting on having a "later" way too much !

MLeake
July 22, 2013, 01:32 AM
From the perspective of somebody who wrestled in high school, then got into kenpo, jujutsu, and ultimately aikido, either we have a couple guys here who have some serious fight training, or else they have very optimistic opinions of what they could do if underneath an attacker.

Could I draw while being straddled? Yes, almost certainly. Rolling the hips isn't that hard to do, even with two or three hundred pounds resistance.

Racking the slide would be more problematic, by an order of magnitude. Typically, if on bottom during an attack, I have at least one hand busy fending off the other guy's strikes.

(Note: I did not say "blocking" or "stopping" the other guy's attacks; if he is on top, he has both muscle power and gravity working in his favor. Deflection and redirection are key, not direct opposition.)

If I am doing disarm drills, and I focus on the weapon exclusively, I will probably not succeed - though I probably will take a few strikes to the face, groin, or other.

To radically increase my success rate at a disarm, I attack the weapon and the person simultaneously - while at the same time keeping my body clear of the muzzle or cutting edge. Ideally, I attack the eyes, because that provides the quickest, simplest distraction - and while he focuses on protecting his eyes, my other hand takes the weapon.

Relative position matters, though, and his eyes may not be accessible; for that matter, his throat might not be, for the same reasons (pop somebody in the Adam's apple, and watch how they react... but do it very carefully, if this is a training partner and not an actual assailant).

Collapsing the knee from behind is another option; so is blocking the knee from in front (though this is more likely to cause injury) or collapsing it from the side (this is extremely likely to cause injury).

So, for the guys who are very confident that they can use both hands and rack the slide while dealing with an assailant on top of them, just how well do you think that would work with somebody like me, who trains at inflicting pain and taking away balance during a disarm?

Wouldn't it be much simpler to just draw and fire?

NWCP
July 22, 2013, 05:53 AM
I have always carried my HK in condition 1. The HK45C being a DA/SA pistol is great for self defense due to its long DA first shot followed by the crisp SA trigger on follow up shots. It has a decocker/safety lever that is easy to use in the event you need to make the weapon safe and re-holster. I don't carry cocked and locked, although the pistol is designed to be carry in that manner if desired. I have found the holster at times can work the safety off leaving the gun in an unsafe state so a round in the pipe with the hammer down works well for me.

OuTcAsT
July 22, 2013, 07:15 AM
MLeake wrote; though I probably will take a few strikes to the face, groin, or other.


And this is key. Right Here ! ^^

Fights do not happen like you see on TV or Movies. They happen quickly, and usually don't last long (unless you are the one getting pounded, then it seems like forever)

Also, while adrenaline has some bearing on it, some people simply cannot "take a punch" like others. If you think you can take a series of hammer-blows to your head, or have someone bounce it off a sidewalk a few times and, still be able to think and function properly, let alone have the fine motor skills it takes to chamber a round, you are very optimistic, in my opinion.

With someone well trained in "hand to hand" combat ? I think you are gonna be unconscious, or worse, before you get to rack a slide.
MLeake, I hope we are always on the same side ! ;)

Glenn E. Meyer
July 22, 2013, 10:50 AM
My take is simple - from my own experience, I had a fall and broke my gun hand wrist, ribs and badly sprained an ankle. Nothing to do with a fight BUT if it was and I fell down boom - with a unchambered gun - that would be quite exciting. Interestingly, I then took (I was scheduled for it before) - an injured shooter class with my left arm in a cast. Carried with my non dominant hand for quite a bit - which is not a problem as I shoot decently either way.

Another stupidity - worried about my car - I drove to the hospital myself and it was stick car. Shifting was interesting. Should have waited for the EMTs. Men are so smart.

About a club - in a class, we did learn how to use the gun as an impact weapon (for close up if you ran out of ammo or malfunctioned). Dressed up in protective gear, you had to walk through a shoot set up with a revolver with an unknown number of rounds (Code Eagle) and then you were set upon by attackers. Whacking them was ok. But it isn't just waving the gun around, there was techniques. Now doing that when someone is sittting on you is would be nasty.

My take - if you fear the technical aspects of the gun or or your skill to manipulate it - it's the wrong gun for you.

Carry a revolver with 4 rounds without one under the hammer and the next to rotate empty. That is as safe as it can get. :rolleyes:

csmsss
July 22, 2013, 01:49 PM
Another factor to consider - racking the slide will unavoidably create a highly recognizable sound that everyone in earshot will understand and respond/react to. So much for any element of surprise you might have had.

Dragline45
July 22, 2013, 02:42 PM
Could I draw while being straddled? Yes, almost certainly. Rolling the hips isn't that hard to do, even with two or three hundred pounds resistance.

I get what you are saying and in essence you are right, I also wrestled for 4 years in high school, but it's not as simple as just rolling the hips and easily grabbing your gun. If you are getting pummeled you need at least one hand to block the incoming blows, and personally if I was on top of someone and pummeling them my weak hand would be grabbing their wrist and pinning it down leaving them only one hand to work with. Most people are right handed and carry a gun on their right hip, seeing as I am also right handed my weak hand would be pinning down their right hand preventing them from grabbing their gun. Even if they are able to grab their gun with their free hand they are giving up all defense and could easily be knocked out. Depending on the circumstances it could be quite a challenge getting to your gun while someone is on top of you throwing down forceful blows. Also since you wrestled and practice MMA you probably know personally how physically tiring wrestling is, even when you are in top shape. I can honestly say I have never been more exhausted in my life than going 6 minutes in a wrestling match.


some people simply cannot "take a punch" like others.

Absolutely true, but even so all it takes is getting hit just right and it's lights out. Go to youtube and watch all the videos of drunk idiots letting a girl punch them in the face because they think it wont do anything, and take note of how many are knocked out from just that one punch. A good friend of mines brother was in a bar fight and got punched just right in the head and it killed him on the spot, one single punch. Fights are not like in the movies where you go home after and just slap a steak on your eye, you can be seriously injured from a punch to the head/face.

Glenn E. Meyer
July 22, 2013, 07:22 PM
That's true. A friend of mine does neuropsychology and says he wants to go around with football helmet at all times. That's from treating folks who crack their head on the edge of the kitchen table and spend the rest of their life just saying 'armadillo' and staring into space.

Deaf Smith
July 22, 2013, 09:49 PM
A friend of mine does neuropsychology and says he wants to go around with football helmet at all times.

I'd just wear a Spartan helmet as they are way more cool.

Carry a revolver with 4 rounds without one under the hammer and the next to rotate empty.

Or get a Magna-trigger (if they still make it.)

Oh and gang, there are several cases where people who were plummeted, MMA style, shot or stabbed their assailants (some got manslaughter charges to as they went outside to fight the other guy.) But I have never heard of one in that position racking the slide. No doubt the other guy would object and there is the chance of short-stroking the slide as you work it.

Deaf

MLeake
July 22, 2013, 10:51 PM
Dragline 45 and Deaf Smith, that was my point.

hogdogs
July 23, 2013, 10:22 AM
This subject will surely come up again...
But this thread has run it's course and then some...

A fully safed weapon on your person as a citizen carrying concealed is frowned upon by the vastest majority of professionals and trainers as well as the more experienced and open minded long term CCW carriers...

I would never think I would have time to draw and then put my gun into battery in the short time a need arises...

And I am no long time CCW carrier...

SO roundy round the dead horse we have beat....

Brent