|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
February 8, 2007, 07:52 AM | #101 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 6,141
|
The combat techniques of both Fairbairn and Applegate were based on combat and police gunfighting experiences and entirely so. Absolutely nothing was derived from target shooting, shooting games like IPSC or cowboy action shooting or the like. The experiences of the two above drew on somewhat different experiences but they did work together for a while.
Applegate went so far as to go back to the well known Wild West gunfighters to try to learn something about what they did and how they managed to survive. Isn't it interesting how the gunfight at the OK Corral keeps coming up in this context? A couple of Hollywood moviemakers actually knew one of the original participants, but that's getting away from the point. Both Fairbairn and Applegate became trainers and were faced with distinct challenges. Fairbairn was with a very large police department of varied ethnic backgrounds. His aim was to produce policemen who could win gunfights (they had a lot) and avoid shooting themselves at the same time. In other words, safety in gun handling was also considered of primary importance. You should find it interesting that they were equipment mainly with Colt 1911's. They also used .380 Colt pocket autos and some Webley .455 revolvers. His beliefs were based on his first hand experiences as a policeman. Applegate was training men who only had a short time to learn practical combat pistol shooting and his techniques were based almost entirely on the experiences of men he had trained and then gone into combat, apparently mostly on raids. He was a believer in point shooting, in his own fashion. It seems both pistols and revolvers were used. Both men also were serious about hand to hand combat, both with knives and bare hands. Other than Fairbairn's insistence that the safeties on automatics not be used, neither spend much time about carrying the pistol or on fast draw but almost all of their effort went into the actual shooting. Reading what they had to say, you will note the lack of narrow dogma. There is nothing about customing pistols (other than Fairbairn's comments about a Fitz New Service revolver), nothing much about ammunition and nothing to speak of about reloading. Their main focus was on hitting the target (the other guy) before he was able to hit you. Accuracy and fast. You can't miss fast enough to make up for anything. It also sounds like both men lived in worlds where you did not have the luxury to spend a couple of hours each weekend honing your shooting skills. Fairbairn even believed that competitive target shooting was detrimental to your combat skills. This isn't to say he wasn't progressive. Both, I think, believed in using two hands when possible for targets further away. Fairbairn even complained that the sights on stock guns were very poor for that purpose, too. All said, however, it doesn't sound like they either imagined anything like a fast draw contest or having to make a quick draw, especially from concealment. In that respect, their advice is not helpful. Finally, about that "combat crouch." Neither men invented it as part of an overall combat technique but rather recognized that if you are getting shot at or think that is about to happen, you very naturally crouch. They merely allowed their trainees to do what was natural. Besides, gunfighting was a very dynamic thing and people were expected to be moving around, not standing stock still and upright.
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands! Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag, and return us to our own beloved homes! Buy War Bonds. |
February 8, 2007, 02:50 PM | #102 | |||||||
Junior member
Join Date: January 24, 2005
Location: SW Louisiana
Posts: 2,289
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||||
February 8, 2007, 04:27 PM | #103 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: March 21, 2006
Posts: 943
|
Quote:
Quote:
Also, no matter what the situation, tactics or equipment by being the first to hit your target you greatly increase your chance of survival.The only sure way to mitigate a threat is to remove it - permanenty! As far as training goes, I have had more training than most people. I have been taught by some of the greatest names in shooting. I was a top competitor for several years (sponsored by several big companies), have been an instructor for many years and consultant to Law Enforcement and military units. So, I have the credentials to qualify my statements, I'm not some internet ninja just spouting off based on watching a video. |
||
February 9, 2007, 01:23 PM | #104 | ||||
Junior member
Join Date: January 24, 2005
Location: SW Louisiana
Posts: 2,289
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
February 9, 2007, 08:45 PM | #105 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 21, 2006
Posts: 943
|
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. While Fairbairn et al. made a timely contribution to combat pistolcraft, their techniques are not the be all to end all. Just because they use it bears no relevance to effectiveness. Organizational doctrine sometimes (in the case of the government - always) dictates requirements that are less than ideal or effective. This is the case with carrying an empty chamber and the "israeli draw."
Sure if you pitted someone who was thoroughly trained in the "israeli draw" against a novice with a pistol the expert will prevail. But, not because of technique but because of competency. Your statements are belief based. Mine are provable and repeatable. C & L is faster than the "israeli draw" every time hands down. 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. Whether you choose to believe that is a personal choice, many continued to believe the world was flat in spite of proof otherwise. Any factor that occurs before the draw is in the realm of tactics, not technique. I always assume the person I am confronting is at least as skilled as I am. Therefore .2 seconds is important. A well trained marksman will hit the target twice in that time span. I won't risk taking two rounds just to feel a false sense of "safety" by carrying an empty chamber (if my unit doctrine dictates that carry, then I have no choice). 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. I was trained in the "israeli draw" by some SAS guys back in the '80's, so I have some experience with the technique. I would also argue that the millions of rounds I have fired C&L are relevant. One doesn't have to become an expert in every technique to be able to determine relative effectiveness. At this point, I will no longer beat this dead horse. The argument has crossed the line from fact to belief and like politics, abortion, religion and gun control once you argue beliefs the debate gets ugly. |
February 9, 2007, 09:02 PM | #106 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 28, 2000
Posts: 4,055
|
Quote:
Take a look at the professional competition shooters. Todd Jarrett, Rob Leatham, Doug Koenig, et. al., would wear pink tutus and toe shoes if it made them shoot faster. If "israeli draw" was faster, they'd be using it. They will do whatever it takes to win. They don't use "israeli draw." Not a single one of them. Why? Because it is slower. |
|
February 9, 2007, 09:56 PM | #107 |
Junior member
Join Date: January 28, 2007
Posts: 14
|
Why not
Why not just carry a Sig DAK loaded and ready...this is my solution.Pull trigger=shoots No trigger pull= no shoot. Simple. I know ..I know the 1911 is more battle tested. So is the canonball.
|
February 9, 2007, 10:39 PM | #108 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 23, 1999
Posts: 498
|
Wow. It's hard to believe this thread is still going strong.
Let's see if I can summarize what I've learned (or already knew): No major modern major military force uses this technique. Including (the last time I was around them), the active Israeli force. Can't speak to current Israeli Reservist practices. No modern LEO agencies use this technique. No successful competitive shooters use this technique. No successful major civilian training schools recommend this technique. No government or private contractor Personal Security Details use this technique. No US military Special Operations forces (nor any foreign ones that I've worked with) use this technique. Although the occasional cherry asks the question... There appears to be no paying market demand for this technique at shooting schools since the 1980s. Folks who are apprehensive about SA Condition One Carry or loaded Glocks appear to like it. There is a guy named Bob (who bought the Israeli VHS tape out of the discount holster bin) who swears by it. According to its proponets, against a stopwatch, I should be able to chug an unopened can of beer quicker than someone can chug an already opened one... I should release a training DVD advocating a one-handed, bladed-body duellist stance; there is bound to be an untapped retro-tactical market (as long as I wear a WWI Imperial German Army Uniform in the video). Hmmmnn...
__________________
Figure The Odds... Last edited by Chindo18Z; February 9, 2007 at 11:41 PM. |
February 10, 2007, 08:26 AM | #109 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 14, 2006
Location: Marysville Washington
Posts: 291
|
alittle off topic, but how can ANYBODY compare the classic 1911 .45 automatic pistol to a effin cannonball? If its soo outdated how come specialist guys shoot em? I could of swore tacomas s.w.a.t still packs a 1911, but i could be wrong. If its soo old school how come alot of the top b.a shooters still shoot em too? I dont know alot about this israeli army draw business, i just carry a gun in a way i figure i can shoot it best. Be it single action revolver with 5 in the wheel, or double action de-cock safety set to safe with 1 in the chamber. Only person i know who takes "firearms are always loaded" attitude to the max is my mom, who carries her bersa with a empty chamber and the safety on. Also one day, i think shortly after my father got done messing with the gun, it somehow automaticly loaded 1 in the chamber.I do not carry a gun for personal defense, i really need to but i also really need to be 21. Instead of carrying a pistol for defense, i usually like to carry a really high level of sitianal awareness when im walking around town or in the car or in a bad place in general.
|
February 10, 2007, 04:52 PM | #110 | ||||||||||
Junior member
Join Date: January 24, 2005
Location: SW Louisiana
Posts: 2,289
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||||||
February 10, 2007, 04:57 PM | #111 | |
Junior member
Join Date: January 24, 2005
Location: SW Louisiana
Posts: 2,289
|
Quote:
|
|
February 10, 2007, 05:21 PM | #112 | |||||||||||
Junior member
Join Date: January 24, 2005
Location: SW Louisiana
Posts: 2,289
|
I think things are starting to get wildly off-topic here, but I think this post, though somewhat tongue-in-cheek, is apropos of the what is tossed around most of the time when people want to argue against chamber empty/Israeli Method techniques:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
So what we have is the usual: a series of arguments that are not true or are of no relevance to a discussion of whether or not the technique still has a place in the modern world of self-defense. Again, I don't say everyone should use it, nor do I say most people should use it. I, and others, take umbrage at those who claim it has no use, and no one should ever use it. |
|||||||||||
February 10, 2007, 06:58 PM | #113 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 23, 1999
Posts: 498
|
David Armstrong: My post was intended to be somewhat tongue-in-cheek.
If you would be so kind as to refute my points without a subjective "...wrong and irrelevant...", I'll entertain serious consideration for your conclusions. Please feel free to name some folks or agencies from my list (besides mythical Bob) who think this form of carry is a good idea. The chances will be very good that I've instructed them, been instructed by them, or served in combat with them. We can compare notes 'cause I'm willing to learn. The beer-chugging reference was a comparative analogy. The more motor skill movements required, the greater propensity for failure at all levels. You will be slower to draw, present, aquire target, and fire. You will also be more likely to fumble presentation and grip under stress. And although the statistical probability of two equally armed opponents conducting a simultaneous quick draw are very low, there is a very high probability that trouble requiring a pistol will erupt close to (if not inside) your personal zone. Try the foolishess you recommend and you will be owned by your opponent. On balance, I believe that you are simply advocating a really good way to die. I know that you don't believe that, so we'll just have to disagree.
__________________
Figure The Odds... |
February 10, 2007, 08:47 PM | #114 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 29, 2002
Location: North East Texas
Posts: 950
|
I honestly cannot believe that this argument has continued.
If you advocate the Israeli Army Draw here are my thoughts. Situational awareness is the most critical single factor in a self defense situation. Speed is also essential in a self defense situation. The Israeli Army Draw is slower than cocked and locked. That is an irrefutable fact. If you are willing to give up that speed for an unproven outdated mode of carry that is fine, just don't try to convince any reasonable person that that is the best mode of carry. If you are unwilling to carry cocked and locked with a round in the chamber than get a different gun. If you are unwilling to carry a traditional double action, a safe action, or a double action only autoloader with a round in the chamber then carry a revolver. If you are unwilling to carry a revolver with a round under the hammer, they you are indeed foolish. If you are inadequately trained (you do have training don't you) to carry a gun safely with a round in the chamber then seek additional training and you do not need to carry a gun before completing that training. Just don't try to convince any trained, proficient, intelligent person that the Israeli Army Draw method is an acceptable method of carry, it has numerous problems. It is slow. It has deficiencies in close combat situations, it is deficient in confined quarters, and it requires two hands for the most optimum level of proficiency and one cannot guaranty that two hands will be available (I realize in can be done with one hand, you are welcome to show me with someone shooting at you). When you shot at your last course of instruction using the Israeli Army Draw how did you do? You have trained with this system, have you not? I don't believe so or you would not advocate it. One last point. Go shoot any quality course LFI, Gunsite, Thunder Ranch etc and let us know how Israeli Army Draw fares in those classes. If you cannot do it in a controlled situation such as a quality gun course what makes you think you can do it in a gunfight.
__________________
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." -- George Orwell |
February 11, 2007, 12:02 PM | #115 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 14, 2006
Location: Marysville Washington
Posts: 291
|
PHP Code:
|
February 11, 2007, 12:28 PM | #116 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: July 29, 2002
Location: North East Texas
Posts: 950
|
Quote:
My comment above still applies, just with a different twist. The only reason to carry an older gun without a hammer safety is because it is your only gun and the situation is dire, otherwise if you choose to carry an outmoded revolver you are indeed foolish (I use foolish for the safe of the board, there are other words I would prefer to insert). Quote:
I would not carry a Glock in my pocket without a holster. I would not carry a gun if I was only comfortable with condition three. I stand by the opinion that carrying a gun in condition three is foolish for the reasons stated in my previous post. Again. Quote:
__________________
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." -- George Orwell |
|||
February 11, 2007, 08:01 PM | #117 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 31, 2000
Location: Texican!
Posts: 4,453
|
David Armstrong: My post was intended to be somewhat tongue-in-cheek.
If you would be so kind as to refute my points without a subjective "...wrong and irrelevant...", I'll entertain serious consideration for your conclusions. Please feel free to name some folks or agencies from my list (besides mythical Bob) who think this form of carry is a good idea. The chances will be very good that I've instructed them, been instructed by them, or served in combat with them. We can compare notes 'cause I'm willing to learn. The beer-chugging reference was a comparative analogy. The more motor skill movements required, the greater propensity for failure at all levels. You will be slower to draw, present, aquire target, and fire. You will also be more likely to fumble presentation and grip under stress. And although the statistical probability of two equally armed opponents conducting a simultaneous quick draw are very low, there is a very high probability that trouble requiring a pistol will erupt close to (if not inside) your personal zone. Try the foolishess you recommend and you will be owned by your opponent. On balance, I believe that you are simply advocating a really good way to die. I know that you don't believe that, so we'll just have to disagree. Chindo, Don't expect david to give references. That ain't his style. He will say for you to research it cause he ain't gonna do it for you (shorthand for saying he has no proof at all.) His idea of carry is a .25 cuase stats show most BGs are scared off by a display of any gun, and thus a .25 is fine and dandy. About the only ones using chamber empty is the U.S. military, but then they requre magzine empty to.
__________________
“To you who call yourselves ‘men of peace,’ I say, you are not safe without men of action by your side” Thucydides |
February 11, 2007, 09:18 PM | #118 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: March 24, 2005
Location: Steubenville, OH
Posts: 4,446
|
Ya know, the one thing on these forums that seems as consistent as the sun rising in the East, is that once sides become polarized in a debate, the shots stop being fired at the issues and the debaters become the target.
Those kinds of shots do damage, regardless if fired from Condition 1 or Condition 3 . Nothing really new has been added to this thread for some time, but some of the insults have grown quite imaginative. Time to close this one, methinks.
__________________
TFL Members are ambassadors to the world for firearm owners. What kind of ambassador does your post make you? I train in earnest, to do the things that I pray in earnest, I'll never have to do. --Capt. Charlie |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|