Video: Israeli Army Draw; alternative to cock&lock

[Carlo]

If you're wondering what condition is best to carry an autoloader, when you've an injured hand-arm, my suggestion would be: none, carry a revolver.
I had my dominant hand bandaged and out of service for dog bites, years ago, I managed to do some shooting with autos, but by far the safest implements to handle in those circumstances were my sixguns.
Sixguns, even top break ones, are easier to load and unload safely with only one hand.

Carlo

[Para Bellum]

It's kind of amusing that people who have absolutely no experience in life or death situations can even question how the Israeli's handle their firearms.

what do you know about "us"?

[MicroBalrog]

It's kind of amusing that people who have absolutely no experience in life or death situations can even question how the Israeli's handle their firearms.

You think the people that made up that Ministry of Interior guideline have such experience? Ha!

[Anon]

I'm surprised no one mentioned this after seeing the Russian video
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/...66#post2196566

...

The 1911 was DESIGNED to be able to chamber a round one handed. Cavalry soldiers held their reigns in one hand. To reload, they dumped the mag, holstered the gun, seated a new mag, drew and racked the slide on their holster in the same manner shown in the video.

[Carlo]

Anyway, realistically, I would be happy to carry what israeli law permit (condition 3) and even with added restrictions (22 in condition 3), more than what my country's law permit me (all I want inside my house, unless I belong to a restricted elite of "people at risk"). It is certainly faster to draw from condition 3 than from your home safe.

Carlo

[BlueTrain]

It occurs to me that proponents of cocked and locked carry are usually also proponents of always using two hands for shooting. However, it also occurs to me that most gunwriters of the past were much less dogmatic about which guns to carry and carry methods than more recent ones. But certain other things also turn up.

I don't think too many gunwriters in the past thought very much about civilian carry, at least concealed carry. Some were actually opposed to civilian carry to a certain degree. Naturally they all had their own point of view, which would have been based on their own experiences. Some of them gave very little attention to the actual handgun and carry method, instead focusing entirely on the shooting particulars. At the same time, it is also worth mentioning that some had absolutely no gunfighting experience, including some very highly regarded writers. None were Israeli. None that I have in mind are still alive--but none died from a gunshot wound.

Some were law enforcement, some were not. Most were involved in competitive shooting but it was just about all formal target shooting. Many were also interested in some form of quick draw, though not all. I mention (without naming) those people mainly because they wrote and were good writers who articulated their thoughts on the subject, something I'm not especially good at.

This however should be true. The more you train and practice with one particular weapon in one particular carry method, you are bound to get better with it that way, and also the further away you get from other ways of doing things, which doesn't mean everybody else has the wrong idea.

You don't expect everyone to crease their hat the same way, do you?

[OBIWAN]

I am at a loss

What is the advantage of chamber empty carry...just need one

Other than some perceived sense of safety

[BlueTrain]

Safety is the primary reason. The second reason is in not having to do anything with safeties, ironically. Note however that there automatics that do not have safeties anyway(I am not including Glocks). If you do not think firearms are dangerous, there is no reason at all. After all, I am only familiar with no more than five people (that I personally was acquainted with) who have been killed with firearms but one of them was with a shotgun.

[Lord_Nikon]

Zzzzzzzzzz... hunh? Another of these threads? Carry condition 1 or leave it at home?

Is it really that big a deal to anyone here whether someone else is carrying condition 1 or 3? Keep in mind, the vast majority of the population isn't carrying anything at all, so condition 3 is better than most. Will it get you killed if someone else doesn't share your carry condition? I doubt it. Let people carry as they want to, without needless flaming.

[Mannlicher]

that sort of silliness is fine for an army grunt. They rely on their rifle, and use a handgun only in isolated instances. A Civilian is much more likely to be attacked without warning, and most often has no rifle with them. Having your handgun ready to go is only prudent.
The two uses are as different as oranges and apples.

[Deaf Smith]

Why not just carry the gun empty if safety is such a consern. It don't take but a few seconds to insert a mag and rack. You can justify that by the number of cops that leave their guns where their own kids get them and blow their brains out (Washington D.C. has had ALOT of that happen!)

Like OBIWAN, I to am at a loss. The weapons are not that complicated and the safety mechanicisms today are quite good.

[OBIWAN]

Thanks DS

People...come on

If you are that concerned about a ND then might I suggest getting a nice DA/SA pistol with a decocker AND manual safety (belt AND suspenders)

If you don't feel safe with a round chambered in one of those with the hammer down and the safety engaged....well.......

Nope...I won't say it...but really!

I know we were originally talking about an alternative to C&L

But maybe...just maybe....you shouldn't have that type of pistol if you are that concerned about the operating system (I said maybe)


I will ask again...do any of you revolver toters keep the next hole in the cylinder empty?

Not the one under the hammer....the one that will come up when/if you pull the DA trigger (or cock it)

Can you even imagine it

And what is the difference?

I shoot mostly Glocks and 1911's

I am amazed at how difficult it is to get one to go bang without really trying....I have never managed it

It is not my intention to make anyone feel bad about their choices

I want everyone to feel safe...and be safe.....

But like Louis Awerbuck says in this months SWAT (paraphrasing)

They call it a gunfight cause youy are trying to shoot the other guy before he shoots you

Dicking around loading your handgun is going to put you behind the curve....

We are the good guys...almost by definition the bad guy will have a head start

[BlueTrain]

Well, here's a kicker: I have a US Army NCO's manual that says to carry the .45 auto hammer down, chamber loaded but to carry revolvers with only five rounds. Anyhow, what makes you so sure we're all good guys?

[shooter71]

if you want to carry a Hi Power with a loaded chamber and dont want cocked and locked..why not just get the FN SFS, with the decocker on it

[David Armstrong]

I will ask again...do any of you revolver toters keep the next hole in the cylinder empty?

Doubtful, but a lot of revolver toters did carry with the chamber under the hammer empty---for safety. And that is the point: different guns, different people , different situations, all can lead to different needs and a different optimal response. Chamber loaded carry 100% of the time is no more valid than is chamber empty 100% of the time. Too many fail to realize there are multiple concerns and issues out there that can lead to a fully acceptable conclusion diametrically opposed to their own.

They call it a gunfight cause youy are trying to shoot the other guy before he shoots you

But that is only one part of the CCW issue, and a relatively rare part at that. Certainly it is one consideration, but it is certainly not the only consideration, and for some it might not even be the main consideration.

The weapons are not that complicated and the safety mechanicisms today are quite good.

And yet look at the large number of AD/NDs that occur, even among well-trained and experienced gun owners.

[Covert Mission]

There are some cases where carrying Condition 3 (loaded mag in gun, chamber empty) can be feasible or necessary. I almost always carry loaded chamber, as I usually carry in an IWB holster, and there's no reason not to carry Condition 1/hot, imo. Bear in mind that many NDs occur on reholstering, due to finger in trigger guard or clothing in guard. won't happen w/Condition 3.

Sometimes though, I carry a Glock in a (non-gun) fanny pack w/o a holster insert. I wouldn't ever carry a Glock condition 1 that way, though I would with some DA/SA autos maybe, or a revo. Condition 3 is fine. Same with jacket pocket carry...condition 3.

I disagree that you're automatically disadvantaged this way in all cases. With practice, you can present the pistol and chamber a round almost in the same motion, with scant delay, as the Israelis practice. You will certainly draw attention to yourself, the sound of the slide being racked being quite obvious. If you need to draw a "hot" gun discreetly to prepare for engagement, this isn't the way!

If you find yourself in a position to have to "drag race" on your draw, you may have a problem pure draw speed won't resolve (especially from concealment). In other words, someone's gotten the drop on you. Still, I usually prefer a belt holster and Condition 1. And don't forget Larry Vicker's motto: "Speed is fine, accuracy is final"

One other advantage, hypothetically, I can see to Condition 3 with many autos. If your gun is snatched from you, and the chamber's empty, that second when the snatcher pulls the trigger, it goes "click", and he's temporarily confused, might buy you enough time to fight back successfully. (If you carry a 1911, and he can't figure out the safety drill, you might buy the same extra time).

FWIW.

[revjen45]

Earlier post referred to cond 0 as an empty gun. I thought cond 0 meant a single action carried cocked with the safety off. Not for the faint of heart or the incompetent. Whatever I'm carrying for SD is 'fully loaded" as they say in the newspapers. If a life threatening situation develops and I NEED my gun against an undetermined number of assailants I don't want to go in 1 round down to start with or take the chance that the 1st one won't feed. I'm not an "operative"- I'm a fat old man who stands no chance if I try to run. If all of a sudden I have to fight for my life against 1 or more sociopaths I want the 1st round in the barrel and some more magazines- maybe another gun too.

[Lurper]

GVF staying on your original topic (somewhat) I find the video interesting in revealing how unskilled these guys are and how impractical the "israeli draw" is.
Granted, if some of the comments are accurate then this method of carry may be forced out of necessity due to law. But can anyone with any common sense truly believe that this method is as fast as condition 1 or any pistol w/a round in the chamber? Come on. I'm not advocating that everyone carry a SA auto cocked and locked. If you aren't comfortable with that carry a DA auto or revolver.

Just watch the video and (poor technique aside) you can see that a skilled pistol shooter could draw and drop these guys in their tracks before they even finished crouching ("Skilled" being the key word - that should tell you that training is the most important part). Adding the need to rack the slide only exacerbates the situation - especially if something goes wrong. There are several other problems with the technique used, but since the original thread wasn't really about technique, I won't elaborate.

Is it an alternative to cocked and locked? In the literal sense, yes, but is it a viable or wise one? No, a more viable option would be a DA auto or revolver. There really isn't a time when carrying an empty chamber makes more sense. The military does it because their training is geared to the lowest common denominator and because the budget does not allow them to train each member to a reasonable level of competency. Even in the rare cases where the pistol is the primary weapon (with the exception of SPECOPS). Ask a SPECOPS operator what condition they carry in. I cannot think of any valid reason where safety (of the firearm) outweighs survival. The most important factor in surviving a gun fight (second to mindset) is the ability to put lead on the target as quickly as possible. The "israeli draw" just adds more time and a lot more variables and opportunity for disaster. After all, how much safer are you going to feel when you are dead?

[waynedm]

I don't want to watch the video bad enough to download Quicktime. :barf:

[OBIWAN]

Lurper is absolutely correct

When our troops DO carry chamber empty it is becasue we don't trust them with live ammo...not because it is the best approach

"Too many fail to realize there are multiple concerns and issues out there that can lead to a fully acceptable conclusion diametrically opposed to their own."

I realize that opinions and methods can differ...I am just looking for some coherent justification...other than not feeling safe with a round chambered

I mean...I can accept that some might want to carry their pistol unloaded with the ammo in a different pocket

I just can't imagine them describing that as efficent

[Covert Mission]

It all depends on your "mission profile". Most of us aren't Special Operators, kicking doors, clearing buildings, snatching tangos.

Of course, we can't predict how and when we might need a gun. As one wise sage put it: "If you knew you were gonna need a gun to go there, why would you go?" Most of have a choice to at least reduce the predictable risk, if not the unknown, unpredictable ones. Avoid the ready-teller at 2 ayem.

So, for some people in everyday life, condition 3 in a fanny pack, jacket pocket, or the like may be the best occasional choice. Not ideal for all situations, or even many maybe. Then again, how many people leave their gun at home or in the car, because they "probably won't need it." Condition 3, on your person, trumps that by a lot!

[Carlo]

Lurper wrote: Just watch the video and (poor technique aside) you can see that a skilled pistol shooter could draw and drop these guys in their tracks before they even finished crouching ("Skilled" being the key word - that should tell you that training is the most important part).

Well, let's not knock israeli technique with imaginary confrontations, it has actually been developed upon combat experience. I am of a different school myself, yet I don't see why we should knock something that actually worked.

[Lurper]

Well, let's not knock israeli technique with imaginary confrontations, it has actually been developed upon combat experience. I am of a different school myself, yet I don't see why we should knock something that actually worked.

Not to be confrontational, but what proof do you have that 1. It was developed from combat experience and 2. that it actually worked?

I didn't create any imaginary scenarios, I simply stated what common sense dictates. It is an inferior technique. The IDF to some people have a mythical quality - whatever they have/do/teach must be the best in the world. In fact, the military and Law enforcement communities have always lagged behind civilians when it comes to pistolcraft. That is why they pay us to teach them technique.

Because it's not really what the original thread is about, I didn't want to debate technique, but maybe this will help. Take two people of equal ability (or time the same person using both techniques) and the person carrying in condition 1 will be able to put lead on the target faster. Every time. You cannot seriously debate otherwise. Remove the proficiency variable and it is simple. The "israeli draw" has more steps before engaging the target than simply drawing and disengaging the safety. It may only be 2/10 or it may be half a second, but it is definately slower. Not taking into consideration the huge drawbacks of the "combat crouch" technique used in the video.

While it is true that conditin 3 is better than the gun at home, I still can see no reason or mission profile that makes any sense to carry in that condition.

[David Armstrong]

I just can't imagine them describing that as efficent

Perhaps we could describe something as efficient if it has worked successfully in a variety of situations and in a variety of places that were quite dangerous without any noticable problems. Becaue theat is what we have with chamber empty carry---a technique that has been used most of the time and in most of the world with a long record of success. To me that is the most telling point of the discussion. One can discuss all sorts of imagined problems, but the harsh light of historical reality says that it is a technique that works, and works well.

Not to be confrontational, but what proof do you have that 1. It was developed from combat experience and 2. that it actually worked?

One should look into the history of gunfighting and how the techniques were developed to find that proof. Suffice it to say that the chamber empty carry was developed in a place that was considered one of the most dangerous cities in the world at the time, and was refined during World War II, and finally popularized by the IDF.

It is an inferior technique.

No. It is a different technique. Whether it is inferior or superior depends on the situation and your specific concerns.

Take two people of equal ability (or time the same person using both techniques) and the person carrying in condition 1 will be able to put lead on the target faster.

Well, there is a lot more to it than just that, however. First, the assumption is questionable on its face, as the chamber movement can be incorporated into the full draw stroke. Then there is the issue of accuracy to consider. Then of course there is the important "if there is a difference does it matter" question. Few DGU incidents are resolved based on tiny fractions of a second. Finally, as mentioned before, putting lead on the target is only one part of the CCW experience, and the other parts can be just as important, maybe more so, depending on the person and the situation.

[Lurper]

Perhaps we could describe something as efficient if it has worked successfully in a variety of situations and in a variety of places that were quite dangerous without any noticable problems. Becaue theat is what we have with chamber empty carry---a technique that has been used most of the time and in most of the world with a long record of success. To me that is the most telling point of the discussion. One can discuss all sorts of imagined problems, but the harsh light of historical reality says that it is a technique that works, and works well.

Fairbairn et al. aside, the mechanics themselves demonstrate that the technique is slower. In my opinion, slower is inferior. I don't know about you, but I for one don't want to have to take a round anywhere before I return fire. While you are correct that cycling the slide can be incorporated into the draw, it cannot be accomplished as quickly as drawing and disengaging a safety. Again, just because Fairbairn, Cooper, the IDF or USMC used the method bears no relevance on its efficiency. You can prove it by using a timer.

First, the assumption is questionable on its face, as the chamber movement can be incorporated into the full draw stroke. Then there is the issue of accuracy to consider. Then of course there is the important "if there is a difference does it matter" question. Few DGU incidents are resolved based on tiny fractions of a second. Finally, as mentioned before, putting lead on the target is only one part of the CCW experience, and the other parts can be just as important, maybe more so, depending on the person and the situation.

While I respect your opinion D. A., I beg to differ. Best case scenario is that the "israeli draw" is going to slow you down by about 2/10 or more. If you can find the links to the videos I posted before, you will see that with a stock Kimber I can hit COM at 7yds with .18 between shots using full power ,45 loads. So, that 2/10 means that you are going to take two rounds. As for accuracy, after you cycle the slide, your weak hand is chasing the pistol or you are going to fire strong hand only. Either way it is not going to be as accurate as a properly mounted pistol. Add the crouching which means that the body, head (eyes), arms, gun (sights) are moving and the upward swinging style draw stroke and you have a recipe for inaccuracy. A proper draw is up and out, not out and up. That way, you can accurately fire from any point in the draw stroke. Not only that, but once you acquire the sights (or front of the pistol), you lessen the chance of losing them because the movement is in a straight line away from you, not up.

Nothing is more important than hitting your target quickly (preferably before being hit). You don't know if that first shot is going to miss or kill you. In the latter case, nothing else really does matter. Therefore, hitting the target quickly is paramount. Also, no one I know is just going to fire one round and stop. I will fire no less than 3. If you watch the video, the shooters have the weapon almost halfway through the draw stroke before the slide is cycled. A well trained pistol shooter can shoot accurately at 7 yds well before that using the proper technique.

I was trying to avoid turning the thread into a debate about technique since I don't think that was the intent of the original post. My apologies for the drift.