Why Israeli Carry Is A Bad Idea

[MLeake]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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, .
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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Sharpsdressed Man

...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.

Originally Posted by Sharpsdressed Man

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, 2009, 2010 and 2011, 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.

Originally Posted by Sharpsdressed Man

...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:

1. 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.
   
   
2. 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.
   
   
3. 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.
   
   
4. 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.
   
   
5. 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[csmsss]

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]

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]

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.