Israeli Carry [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Israeli Carry


stevemc
11-16-2011, 07:01
I am wondering about opinions on this method. I would like to hear from people who have had "real world" experience, like cops or someone who has had to draw due to extreme circumstances. What was the timing like. Do you think it made a difference that the firearm was ready to go immediately. It is my own opinion that training to rack the slide while drawing is just as good as keeping it ready to fire all the time, with possible life saving benefits of avoiding ND by yourself or others, but I have zero experience in a situation.


[Moderator Note and Warning - Folks, before you post, read all the other posts in this thread, all of them. This is not another "beating a dead horse" thread.

If you choose to not read the thread, not make a positive contribution to the discussion, and you just post the dead horse emoticon, you'll receive an infraction for trolling.]

TangoFoxtrot
11-16-2011, 07:27
Good luck on this one. There are many schools of thought on this subject.

RussP
11-16-2011, 07:49
Here are some threads on the topic, stevemc...


Israeli/Condition 3 draw safety first! (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1345575&highlight=israeli)
Carrying one in the chamber (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1376467&highlight=israeli)
One in the Chamber (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1377363&highlight=israeli)
Transitioning to condition 1 carry - tips welcome (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1365942&highlight=chamber)
Is it me or are some people just really naive??? (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1355470&highlight=chamber)
DO you "carry" with a round chambered? (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1347829&highlight=chamber)
+1 carry? (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1342514&highlight=chamber)
Experiment - Chambered Vs Unchambered Vs Calf OC (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1280836)


I would like Jake Starr to post his paper on "Israeli Carry". Posting here would be fine. Just do not want multiple threads on the topic going at the same time.

ithaca_deerslayer
11-16-2011, 08:47
It is my own opinion that training to rack the slide while drawing is just as good as keeping it ready to fire all the time, with possible life saving benefits of avoiding ND by yourself or others, but I have zero experience in a situation.

I have no cop or gunfight experience. Fortunately, my real world hasn't involved either of those two things :rofl:

But as to your premise, you really have to decide what is important to you.
-- Is unchambered as fast to draw as chambered? No.
-- Is unchambered fast enough in an emergency situation? Maybe.
-- Is unchambered the same as carrying a paper weight? No.
-- Is racking the slide by hand more likely to create a jam? Yes.

With regard to accidental discharges, there are a couple ways it can go. For one, if the gun is actually unchambered then even the worst malfunction of ammunition is not going to be fatal. You could put your unchambered gun in a fire, and the popping off of ammo won't be very dangerous compared to what a chambered round can do. But carrying unchambered can have the unintended consequence of you not taking gun safety seriously, and if the round actually is chambered it could be a surprise.

There is no right answer. You just have to weigh the pluses and minuses of each method.

You also have to consider the platform. A Glock, in my opinion, is a good gun for unchambered carry (also good for chambered carry). The round racks into the chamber easily and reliably. There are no external safties to fumble with.

A Kahr PM9 is a lousy gun to carry unchambered. Jamming upon racking the slide by hand is common, and even the manufacturer tells you to pull back the slide all the way, then use the slide release. The slide is also smaller to grip and harder to pull back than the Glock 26.

A revolver is also a lousy gun to carry unchambered (I know old 6 shooters had to be carried that way). Are you going to keep the next cylinder unchambered too? Or instead, do you take something like a 642, load it up, and then just keep your darn finger away from the trigger. :)

Finally, try racking the slide with one hand. It ain't easy. There are lots of scenarios we can think of where one of your hands will be busy, and the other hand has to draw the gun by itself.

The conclusion isn't that chambered is better than unchambered. Instead, just be informed of the differrences, and then weigh the plusses and minuses.

One reason I like unchambered for is around little kids. A dad rolling around on the floor rough housing with a son might prefer to carry unchambered in that situation.

stevemc
11-16-2011, 09:48
Good response. Thanks. My gun is P30, and I have never even thought of a round not going in when racking. In many thousands of rounds that has not happened. I also respectfully disagree that drawing unchambered is any slower than not. With practice, I am able to rack on the way up without losing any time at all. Like you said, it's a personal choice based on personal opinion. Maybe just my experience, but It seems like there is a strong outspoken bias against carrying unchambered on this forum to the point of anger. That's why I am asking for real scenarios.

I have no cop or gunfight experience. Fortunately, my real world hasn't involved either of those two things :rofl:

But as to your premise, you really have to decide what is important to you.
-- Is unchambered as fast to draw as chambered? No.
-- Is unchambered fast enough in an emergency situation? Maybe.
-- Is unchambered the same as carrying a paper weight? No.
-- Is racking the slide by hand more likely to create a jam? Yes.

With regard to accidental discharges, there are a couple ways it can go. For one, if the gun is actually unchambered then even the worst malfunction of ammunition is not going to be fatal. You could put your unchambered gun in a fire, and the popping off of ammo won't be very dangerous compared to what a chambered round can do. But carrying unchambered can have the unintended consequence of you not taking gun safety seriously, and if the round actually is chambered it could be a surprise.

There is no right answer. You just have to weigh the pluses and minuses of each method.

You also have to consider the platform. A Glock, in my opinion, is a good gun for unchambered carry (also good for chambered carry). The round racks into the chamber easily and reliably. There are no external safties to fumble with.

A Kahr PM9 is a lousy gun to carry unchambered. Jamming upon racking the slide by hand is common, and even the manufacturer tells you to pull back the slide all the way, then use the slide release. The slide is also smaller to grip and harder to pull back than the Glock 26.

A revolver is also a lousy gun to carry unchambered (I know old 6 shooters had to be carried that way). Are you going to keep the next cylinder unchambered too? Or instead, do you take something like a 642, load it up, and then just keep your darn finger away from the trigger. :)

Finally, try racking the slide with one hand. It ain't easy. There are lots of scenarios we can think of where one of your hands will be busy, and the other hand has to draw the gun by itself.

The conclusion isn't that chambered is better than unchambered. Instead, just be informed of the differrences, and then weigh the plusses and minuses.

One reason I like unchambered for is around little kids. A dad rolling around on the floor rough housing with a son might prefer to carry unchambered in that situation.

Adjuster
11-16-2011, 09:55
We can have this same old discussion over and over. The most significant problem I see with Israeli is it takes two hands. I can imagine hundreds of scenarios where you need one hand for the draw and the other hand for, well, hundreds of things.

MODOC GLOCK
11-16-2011, 10:02
Try drawing, racking the slide, and acquiring the target while under more stress in that moment than you have probably ever felt your entire life.

For me...there is just too many things, fine motor skills to complete before I can defend my life.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

ViennaGambit
11-16-2011, 10:03
We can have this same old discussion over and over. The most significant problem I see with Israeli is it takes two hands. I can imagine hundreds of scenarios where you need one hand for the draw and the other hand for, well, hundreds of things.

Yup this is my biggest concern - I can imagine a scenario where a guy is rushing or trying to grab you and you need to fend with one hand and draw with the other...

dosei
11-16-2011, 10:05
We can have this same old discussion over and over. The most significant problem I see with Israeli is it takes two hands. I can imagine hundreds of scenarios where you need one hand for the draw and the other hand for, well, hundreds of things.

...and every time this old discussion takes place someone brings up this same old line of BS...

Come on people...no matter what condition you carry in you should be able to do one-hand manipulation drills. Which means you should be well aware of ways to rack the slide without using two hands. While I do not recommend one-handed racking as the primary method (for those that opt to carry chamber empty), it should be well-practiced and easily executed when needed (even by those of use that do not carry chamber empty). I carry C1, yet I am still familiar with various one-hand manipulation drills. So...since I know that it is possible to draw with one hand...and I know that it is possible to rack the slide with one hand...I thus know that it is possible to draw and rack the slide with one hand.

So, by combining simple elements that should be learned by anyone who carries an auto-loading handgun for self-defence (one-handed draw and one-handed slide manipulation) we get this:
Condition 3 - Draw and rack with one hand - YouTube
No "fine motor skills" required either.

cowboy1964
11-16-2011, 10:23
Cops the world over don't use this method. If it's so great, why not?

As far as using the belt method to rack one-handed, that won't work with many sights because they are sloped instead of squared off.

Anyone that worried about an ND needs A) more confidence and training and B) maybe a gun with a manual safety lever

Do the Israeli's even use Israeli Carry today? I don't know but I'd bet against it.

dosei
11-16-2011, 10:32
Cops the world over don't use this method. If it's so great, why not?

Correction, Cops in the US do not use this method and have not for about 30-40 years (prior to that, autos were carried chamber empty). For the rest of the world, it is still the norm to carry autos chamber empty. For the majority of the last century, chamber empty carry was the norm everywhere including the US.

ithaca_deerslayer
11-16-2011, 10:33
I also respectfully disagree that drawing unchambered is any slower than not.

This certainly can be tested.

Try it both ways in IDPA or some similar course setup, and compare times.

Heck, I think drawing and shooting on target with a Glock 17 is quicker than with a Beretta 92 with the safety off. The reason is that long heavy first shot of the Beretta.

And I also think drawing and shooting on target with the Beretta safety off is easier than doing so with the safety on.

And I also think drawing and shooting on target with the Beretta safety on and with a round chambered is faster than with a Glock with a round unchambered.

Those are my opinions, and based on my own testing. But you can certainly do those kinds of tests and see how it works out for you.

The thing I like about IDPA for this sort of stuff, is it adds a little bit of stress. People watching you, waiting for the buzzer, trying to beat Joe Betterthanyou, someone else is running the clock, etc. Certainly no bullets flying back at you, but it is at least more stressful than standing in your backyard and doing the same type of moves all alone with nobody watching.

ithaca_deerslayer
11-16-2011, 10:43
Something interesting I heard...

My father-in-law was in the Korean theater of action, in the Air Force. He told me that when on guard duty in pairs, out around the parked planes, they would carry the 1911 unchambered.

They were taught to believe they could rack the slide on the side of the holster if they needed to draw the gun. They were not trained this particular move, but were instead just told that's what they should do.

Personally, I would think the presentation time on that kind of move compared to already having the round chambered would be quite long. And the chances of still being unchambered or jammed, after attempting to rack the slide like that would be a bit higher than I'd be comfortable with.

Now, of course someone can do it pretty good on video and make it look smooth enough. But if you taught 50 guys to do it like that, and another 50 to start out with carrying an already chambered round, and then you timed them and took video of each performance, I bet the results would be entertaining :rofl:

On the flip side, maybe the Air Force found that the AD rate was a lot lower by having their guards carry unchambered :)

PAGunner
11-16-2011, 10:49
I can see it now, "Hold on bad guy, let me rack my slide!" :whistling:

SpringerTGO
11-16-2011, 12:57
I carry condition one, but can think of lots of scenarios where condition 3 would make sense.
First off, it takes lots of time for new shooters to become comfortable with handguns in any condition. If they feel safer with condition 3, it beats not carrying at all. In another thread there is a post about someone killing himself accidentally. People are posting all kinds of insults about poor weapons handling etc., and the guy might have been inexperienced. No need to insult him though, because all of us are new at carrying at one time or another. If he carried condition 3 he would be alive today.

I think if you have to ask, condition 3 is probably the way to carry.

Marc1956
11-16-2011, 13:08
...and every time this old discussion takes place someone brings up this same old line of BS...

Come on people...no matter what condition you carry in you should be able to do one-hand manipulation drills. Which means you should be well aware of ways to rack the slide without using two hands. While I do not recommend one-handed racking as the primary method (for those that opt to carry chamber empty), it should be well-practiced and easily executed when needed (even by those of use that do not carry chamber empty). I carry C1, yet I am still familiar with various one-hand manipulation drills. So...since I know that it is possible to draw with one hand...and I know that it is possible to rack the slide with one hand...I thus know that it is possible to draw and rack the slide with one hand.

So, by combining simple elements that should be learned by anyone who carries an auto-loading handgun for self-defence (one-handed draw and one-handed slide manipulation) we get this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMsAvWOEj-k
No "fine motor skills" required either.

Thank you for your input and opinion. I watched your video and see that you have, indeed, got a very quick method for drawing and racking with 1 hand. My concern is the idea of limited mobility but I carry C1 as well. Perhaps I need to practice various one hand drills as you suggest! Thanks! I now return you to your regularly scheduled thread! :embarassed:

hamster
11-16-2011, 13:52
I can see it now, "Hold on bad guy, let me rack my slide!" :whistling:

How else would the bad guy know I'm serious? I also make a cocking sound whenever my glock comes into view. :)

PhotoFeller
11-16-2011, 14:29
This subject does get lots of attention, multiple threads over time, similar comments/arguments, but a clear, settled winner never emerges, in my opinion. However, I can't think of single topic in the realm of handguns that deserves greater focus. Exercising safety, however we carry, is more important than the efficiency of our draw.

Chapters have been written on condition 1 vs Israeli and other methods. I offer only a few points from my perspective:

1. Carrying with one in the chamber is inherently more dangerous than having an empty chamber. This is a self evident truth which can't be refuted, and it applies to every functioning firearm. By "dangerous" I mean the possibility of human error (ND) is greater. To argue that a highly trained, skilled, experienced person who practices frequently will never screw up with one in the chamber is denying the human factor.

2. People who are highly skilled with meaningful experience are much less likely to have a firearm mishap. Condition 1 carry by those who are competent is logical and reasonable. People who are lower on the competence curve should not carry with a chambered weapon for reasons of public and personal safety. Carrying in a proper holster does not mitigate the fallibility of unskilled hands.

3. Too much emphasis is put on condition 1 carry without appropriate attention to the competence necessary for safe performance. Most Condition 1 advocates emphasize the split-second advantage in an attack and the requirement for one-hand deployment if injured. Many here say you need to train and practice this method of carry, but no one says "don't carry chambered until you are highly accomplished in firearm handling". I think that should be a given.

4. In my mind the method of firearm carry is simply a matter of personal choice for anyone who is very well prepared in administrative handling and execution of combat techniques. For those who lack advanced competence, keeping the chamber empty until you are really ready is the safe, sensible thing to do.

xmanhockey7
11-16-2011, 14:52
http://www.ignatius-piazza-front-sight.com/2011/04/04/front-sights-monday-blog-why-you-carry-a-loaded-gun/

hamster
11-16-2011, 14:59
http://www.ignatius-piazza-front-sight.com/2011/04/04/front-sights-monday-blog-why-you-carry-a-loaded-gun/

I'm all for condition 1 carry. I carry condition 1 exclusively. That being said, the video in the above link is a really poor argument IMO. A jewelry store owner is in a very different risk profile than the average CCW citizen. I'm not sure of how much sense it makes to introduce that video into this discussion.

cloudbuster
11-16-2011, 15:03
A revolver is also a lousy gun to carry unchambered (I know old 6 shooters had to be carried that way). Are you going to keep the next cylinder unchambered too? Or instead, do you take something like a 642, load it up, and then just keep your darn finger away from the trigger.

First off, I carry a round chambered, so you know where I'm coming from, but I don't find this argument very convincing.

In isolation, I've always thought my stock Glock had a fairly safe length of pull, and in concert with the trigger safety, that's enough.

But I had never really thought about it. I also have a stock KLCR .357, which I think of as having a reasonably smooth light trigger for a revolver.

But I'd never really compared, side-by-side, at the same time. I know that's maybe odd for some of you, but I tend, for cost and cleaning reasons, to just pick one gun for a practice session, most of the time. I have fired my K-Frame and my daughter's J-Frame and my G26 in the same session and while the Glock is obviously lighter, it wasn't the focus of my time, so I didn't really think about it.

So, today I loaded my KLCR with snap caps and emptied my Glock and just continuously dry-fired both of them, just paying attention to length and weight of trigger pull. Sometimes swapping one for the other, sometimes with one in my left hand and one with my right.

After you do that for a bit, it really hits home both how much lighter and how much shorter the length of pull is on the Glock trigger. It's not a trivial difference. If you start applying even pressure to both triggers simultaneously, one in each hand, the Glock is going to go click (or bang!) much sooner and easier than the LCR.

So, the "you don't carry a revolver with the next chamber empty" argument doesn't hold a lot of weight with me anymore. Apples and Oranges.

That said. I never feel nervous carrying my Glock with one in the chamber. I carry it in a Bianchi Carrylok and when it's out of the holster I pay attention to where it's pointed and I never put my finger in the trigger guard unless I'm about to fire it. I pay attention when I'm holstering. When it's sitting there in the holster, there's virtually nothing that can cause it to fire.

In many years of carrying, I've never come close to an unwanted discharge, because I never, not even a little, get lazy with the rules.

But, still, I can't argue the fact that the revolver is a bit more "negligence-safe" than the Glock. I honestly don't know how the Glock trigger safety affects that balance. I'm sure it helps, but many things that really get deep enough in the trigger guard with enough force to pull the trigger are probably deep enough to depress the trigger safety. I just don't know.

I wouldn't criticize anyone for deciding Israeli carry was for them.

I've been carrying so long with a round chambered, that I'm almost afraid it's dangerous to change -- I'm very much a creature of habit and I don't want to get confused or get used to the idea that "there's no round in the chamber."

stevemc
11-16-2011, 17:54
How friggin ironic. I got all the "my way is the best way because--"stuff and a guy named beatcop thinks we"re beating a dead horse. STILL not a single reference to a real situation that actually happened. I AM ASKING FOR REAL EXPERIENCES. I don't care that you think you need your other hand for something else at all times. There are plenty of "experts" that will tell you that you will be killed with your own firearm in short order with this type of mindset. I am more convinced now than ever that if you don't have time to rack the firearm, then you don't have time to use it at all.

Deaf Smith
11-16-2011, 17:55
Well there is a way to test chamber empty carry for safety, reliability, and speed in action.

Go into IDPA and use a chamber empty weapon for say a years worth of matches.

1. See if you can draw fast and reliability chamber a round without an AD/ND or induced jam.

2.See how fast you are doing this compared to those with fully loaded guns who don't have to do this.

3. See how many accidents others have drawing their weapons (I bet none.)

I also bet though you will find it's a bit more hazardous chamber a round fast under pressure as well as more prone to inducing a jam. And a bit slower to.

Oh, and when they demand one handed shooting, you will have to figure out how to safely chamber a round one handed. Can be done, but not with any real speed.

Deaf

SCmasterblaster
11-16-2011, 18:35
I carry my G17 at condition 1.5. My Otapin inserted keeps the sllide back 6mm. No ADs with me. To shoot, I have to pull the Otapin out and then pull the trigger.

Bushflyr
11-16-2011, 19:04
Israeli carry is stupid. Period. End of story.

Anyone who thinks otherwise has never done any ECQC training. THIS VIDEO (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPO3h2bTe9w&feature=related) is a perfect example of what happens at close quarters when your gun goes click instead of bang.

THIS ONE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeX1PyKKuYk&feature=related) is good too.

Deaf Smith
11-16-2011, 20:04
And again, as I've posted in the past...

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. Kind of like the technique of fanning a SA revolver in that it pretty much requires two hands and done fast.

Is chamber empty safer to carry? Not 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.

Deaf

PhotoFeller
11-16-2011, 21:40
Among all of the people who carry firearms in the US, I believe there are more incidents of ND than there are nose-to-nose assaults where Condition 1 carry saves the victim.

How can anyone argue that a chambered gun is as safe as one with an empty chamber? If the argument is that a properly holstered gun won't fire itself, I would agree IF the gun isn't strapped on, taken off, cleaned, laid in your underwear in public restrooms, fired at the range, shifted for comfort while driving, hung on the changing room door at Macy's, moved from the belt to the gym locker, and on and on. A static state weapon is perfectly harmless with one in the chamber; a weapon carried everyday is not a static weapon.

I've got no qualms about competent people carrying Condition 1. It strikes me as disingenuous to pretend that a chambered gun in a proper holster is all right for everyone, across the board. Some people just shouldn't carry a chambered firearm.

Kaybe
11-16-2011, 23:07
I have tried to figure out why the Israelis do this, but can't. They do sell a device that aids in one hand chambering. The slide cover plate is replaced with one that has a small knob sticking out the left side. If two hands are not available, push the gun down on the edge of the belt, holster or whatever and chamber it. I would never carry one like that, but for some reason, some of them do.

Lior
11-17-2011, 00:38
1. The reason that Israeli carry exists is that at least 99% of the world's population is not very competent in the handling and use of firearms, particularly pistols.
2. Israeli carry is an expression of distrust by authorities / instructors for service personnel whom they regulate.
3. For civilians, it is a result of a threat assessment that administrating gun handling is more dangerous than bad guys.
4. For the record, I usually carry with one in the chamber, unless I'm on uniformed duty (mandated by police regulations here - for my EDC G17) or am on my way to an IPSC shooting event where I need an empty gun, in which case I carry in condition 3 (CZ SP01 Shadow - the World's Sexiest Gun).

IT0
11-17-2011, 06:15
It seems to me that the biggest factor in this discussion is training. With enough training and discipline +1 could be handled safely and with a very small chance of ND or AD, but also with enough training Israeli carry would be a very small factor in speed or performance under stress.

A Glock can be racked one handed by hooking the back sights on your belt and pushing down, and with enough training it could be done under stress, but again it still comes down to training.

As a side question, if a 3.5# connector is a legal liability for a justified self defense because it could be argued that you accidently shot someone, then could +1 also be a legal liability as well for the same reason? Just asking because I don’t know, and taking net advice for what it is worth….

cloudbuster
11-17-2011, 07:10
How friggin ironic. I got all the "my way is the best way because--"stuff and a guy named beatcop thinks we"re beating a dead horse. STILL not a single reference to a real situation that actually happened. I AM ASKING FOR REAL EXPERIENCES. I don't care that you think you need your other hand for something else at all times. There are plenty of "experts" that will tell you that you will be killed with your own firearm in short order with this type of mindset. I am more convinced now than ever that if you don't have time to rack the firearm, then you don't have time to use it at all.

How friggin predictable. The OP is a dick. Sorry we all wasted your time.

AH.74
11-17-2011, 07:32
deleted

hamster
11-17-2011, 08:11
There was a real life case in Dayton where a guy was attacked while filling up his car at the gas station. He only had one had to retrieve his pistol, luckily it was chambered:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iz4tOc1GLgo
http://www.ohioccwforums.org/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=53502

PhotoFeller
11-17-2011, 08:15
How friggin ironic. I got all the "my way is the best way because--"stuff and a guy named beatcop thinks we"re beating a dead horse. STILL not a single reference to a real situation that actually happened. I AM ASKING FOR REAL EXPERIENCES. I don't care that you think you need your other hand for something else at all times. There are plenty of "experts" that will tell you that you will be killed with your own firearm in short order with this type of mindset. I am more convinced now than ever that if you don't have time to rack the firearm, then you don't have time to use it at all.

Your question was doomed from the start because you asked for REAL LIFE EXPERIENCES. The vast majority of GTalkers (other than military and LEO) only have experience GTalking and in SD classrooms.

I feel comfortable speculating that not one person in the GTalk kingdom can answer your question from first hand gun fighting knowledge; most dismiss the Israeli method because of popular notions about split second reaction time needed for attacks coming from 7 yards, needing to rack with one hand, etc.; the arguments all come from TV, magazines, Internet, SD instructors and here. I believe most LEO and military experience wouldn't have relevance to the Condition1 vs Israeii debate.

Forum debates are healthy and can be great learning opportunities for folks who have an open mind, consider the posts on their merit, and form an opinion using logic. With respect to gun fighting techniques, this venue is all about opinions supported only by what someone else has told us.

There are some good posts in this thread that offer balanced points of view. Are any based on first hand experience? Probably not.

ithaca_deerslayer
11-17-2011, 08:21
So, today I loaded my KLCR with snap caps and emptied my Glock and just continuously dry-fired both of them, just paying attention to length and weight of trigger pull. Sometimes swapping one for the other, sometimes with one in my left hand and one with my right.

After you do that for a bit, it really hits home both how much lighter and how much shorter the length of pull is on the Glock trigger. It's not a trivial difference. If you start applying even pressure to both triggers simultaneously, one in each hand, the Glock is going to go click (or bang!) much sooner and easier than the LCR.

So, the "you don't carry a revolver with the next chamber empty" argument doesn't hold a lot of weight with me anymore. Apples and Oranges.

Just to be clear, I wasn't making the arguement that "since a revolver was carried chambered, therefore XYZ gun should be." Instead, I think you and I are both saying pretty much the same thing.

I was saying that if you want to carry unchambered, then a Glock makes a good choice; but a revolver makes a bad choice.

And you are saying, compare the trigger pulls and factor that into your decision. I agree :)

ithaca_deerslayer
11-17-2011, 08:41
Your question was doomed from the start because you asked for REAL LIFE EXPERIENCES. The vast majority of GTalkers (other than military and LEO) only have experience GTalking and in SD classrooms.

I feel comfortable speculating that not one person in the GTalk kingdom can answer your question from first hand gun fighting knowledge; most dismiss the Israeli method because of popular notions about split second reaction time needed for attacks coming from 7 yards, needing to rack with one hand, etc.; the arguments all come from TV, magazines, Internet, SD instructors and here. I believe most LEO and military experience wouldn't have relevance to the Condition1 vs Israeii debate.

Forum debates are healthy and can be great learning opportunities for folks who have an open mind, consider the posts on their merit, and form an opinion using logic. With respect to gun fighting techniques, this venue is all about opinions supported only by what someone else has told us.

There are some good posts in this thread that offer balanced points of view. Are any based on first hand experience? Probably not.

Of course you are completely correct.

But gunfights are rare. People involved with them are not apt to discuss openly to just anyone who asks. The systematic compilation of the data is rare. Analysis of the data is often subject to competing claims of bias. Statistical conclusions from anecdotal experience is poorly based. So, basically, welcome to the internet :)

How do we know anything?

I will again put forth the idea that shooting competitions like IDPA, or actual observed and timed practise, is about as good of an indicator we have as to what methods work better than others for us. (Not saying it is a replacement for various forms of training or studying gunfight outcomes, just saying it is one way to test our shooting ability).

An individual, like me, or you, or the OP, can pick a gun and carry method and enter a competition and see how he/she does. Then he can change the gun and/or carry method, and try that same competition again and see what difference there is.

Is that real experience or not? There are no bullets flying back at you. But at least you are actually testing yourself, the gun, and the carry method, with regard to speed and accuracy.

From there, you have a more informed opinion on what works best for you, and you can weigh that into your decision making process.

blk69stang
11-17-2011, 09:28
I carry a badge and gun at work and I would NEVER, EVER, EVER, EVER use "Israeli Carry". When you are "drag racing" a bad guy to see who gets the first hit in a gunfight, racking the slide is time wasted. It's time you could have been using to line up the sights and concentrate on your trigger control. That time will either cause the bad guy to get the first hit on you, or you will have to hurry your shot and risk a miss in order to get off a shot in the time you would have otherwise if you had already chambered a round.

And I'm not even going to address the possibility of inducing a jam, short-stroking the slide, or any other number of things that could be caused by operator error in a high stress situation.

Remember, under high-stress (like a life-or-death shooting) all you fine motor skills go out the window, and you are left with only your gross motor skills. You may not be able to properly manipulate the slide or clear a jam if it occurs.

The risk of an AD is a false-argument, as a PROPER holster will absolutely prevent the gun from firing until it's drawn. When in a PROPER holster, the gun WILL NOT have an AD.

Carrying a primary defensive tool on condition 3 (Israeli Carry) is stupid, foolish, and dangerous. Pure and simple, end of argument.

hamster
11-17-2011, 09:58
Carrying a primary defensive tool on condition 3 (Israeli Carry) is stupid, foolish, and dangerous. Pure and simple, end of argument.

For trained LEOs like yourself sure.

But the first year untrained CCW carrier, he is statistically orders of magnitude more likely to shoot himself Tex-Grebner style than to suffer because it took an extra second to rack his weapon.

One more video since we are on the video subject:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYvAxLX6OzE
:popcorn:


Fact is, nobody has EVER shot themselves on the draw with israeli carry. It is such a common occurence with +1 carry that many firearms training schools ban certain styles of holsters. (Serpas)
:popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:

PhotoFeller
11-17-2011, 10:19
Of course you are completely correct.

But gunfights are rare. People involved with them are not apt to discuss openly to just anyone who asks. The systematic compilation of the data is rare. Analysis of the data is often subject to competing claims of bias. Statistical conclusions from anecdotal experience is poorly based. So, basically, welcome to the internet :)

How do we know anything?

I will again put forth the idea that shooting competitions like IDPA, or actual observed and timed practise, is about as good of an indicator we have as to what methods work better than others for us. (Not saying it is a replacement for various forms of training or studying gunfight outcomes, just saying it is one way to test our shooting ability).

An individual, like me, or you, or the OP, can pick a gun and carry method and enter a competition and see how he/she does. Then he can change the gun and/or carry method, and try that same competition again and see what difference there is.

Is that real experience or not? There are no bullets flying back at you. But at least you are actually testing yourself, the gun, and the carry method, with regard to speed and accuracy.

From there, you have a more informed opinion on what works best for you, and you can weigh that into your decision making process.

Well stated and I totally agree. You comments support multiple realities about SD techniques: (1) gunfights are very rare, (2) training, practice and competition that simulates SD conditions are important developmental experiences for anyone who carries a firearm and (3) giving serious thought to personal skills based on what works best (and is safest) is imperative; by that I mean using one's intellectual capacity to sort out what makes sense given a realistic assessment of competence.

For me, safety is the first priority. That doesn't mean competent people shouldn't carry Condition 1. I carry chamber empty because personal skills are much in need of development. My concern is that too much emphasis is given to Condition 1 without caveats about qualifications needed for that method.

There is too much mindless advice handed out here about subjects that are critical to personal and public safety. Unfortunately, some are naive enough to gobble it up without thinking. Forums like this can be powerful teaching venues or conduits of dangerous misinformation. It's up to us to decide which way things go.

Sorry Steve. We muddied your OP without answering the prime question. Maybe we can get back on track now.

PhotoFeller
11-17-2011, 10:38
I carry a badge and gun at work and I would NEVER, EVER, EVER, EVER use "Israeli Carry". When you are "drag racing" a bad guy to see who gets the first hit in a gunfight, racking the slide is time wasted. It's time you could have been using to line up the sights and concentrate on your trigger control. That time will either cause the bad guy to get the first hit on you, or you will have to hurry your shot and risk a miss in order to get off a shot in the time you would have otherwise if you had already chambered a round.

And I'm not even going to address the possibility of inducing a jam, short-stroking the slide, or any other number of things that could be caused by operator error in a high stress situation.

Remember, under high-stress (like a life-or-death shooting) all you fine motor skills go out the window, and you are left with only your gross motor skills. You may not be able to properly manipulate the slide or clear a jam if it occurs.

The risk of an AD is a false-argument, as a PROPER holster will absolutely prevent the gun from firing until it's drawn. When in a PROPER holster, the gun WILL NOT have an AD.

Carrying a primary defensive tool on condition 3 (Israeli Carry) is stupid, foolish, and dangerous. Pure and simple, end of argument.

69,

I know you mean well, but you're doing a disservice to less prepared people who read your post and think "This guy sounds like a cop and he says carrying an unchambered gun is foolish, dangerous, stupid. I guess if we've got a really good holster, that's all we need to worry about". You are using your police credentials carelessly to make generalizations that could cause somebody to get killed. As far as your advice goes, I hope it is "end of argument".

By the way, your comments sound pretty academic. Remember, the OP asked for real experiences.

dosei
11-17-2011, 10:43
Remember, under high-stress (like a life-or-death shooting) all you fine motor skills go out the window, and you are left with only your gross motor skills. You may not be able to properly manipulate the slide or clear a jam if it occurs.

Slide manipulations utilize gross motor skills...pulling the trigger (properly), however, requires fine motor skills. If your motor skills have gone so completely to pot that you are unable to manipulate the slide, you will have no chance of being able to manipulate the trigger...so you're dead no matter what condition you carried in. This is why training that induces stress is important, it conditions you so that you will be able to function under stresses that would shut down other people.

SpringerTGO
11-17-2011, 10:51
I carry a badge and gun at work and I would NEVER, EVER, EVER, EVER use "Israeli Carry". When you are "drag racing" a bad guy to see who gets the first hit in a gunfight, racking the slide is time wasted. It's time you could have been using to line up the sights and concentrate on your trigger control. That time will either cause the bad guy to get the first hit on you, or you will have to hurry your shot and risk a miss in order to get off a shot in the time you would have otherwise if you had already chambered a round.

And I'm not even going to address the possibility of inducing a jam, short-stroking the slide, or any other number of things that could be caused by operator error in a high stress situation.

Remember, under high-stress (like a life-or-death shooting) all you fine motor skills go out the window, and you are left with only your gross motor skills. You may not be able to properly manipulate the slide or clear a jam if it occurs.

The risk of an AD is a false-argument, as a PROPER holster will absolutely prevent the gun from firing until it's drawn. When in a PROPER holster, the gun WILL NOT have an AD.

Carrying a primary defensive tool on condition 3 (Israeli Carry) is stupid, foolish, and dangerous. Pure and simple, end of argument.

Tell us what you really think.

PhotoFeller
11-17-2011, 10:56
Slide manipulations utilize gross motor skills...pulling the trigger (properly), however, requires fine motor skills. If your motor skills have gone so completely to pot that you are unable to manipulate the slide, you will have no chance of being able to manipulate the trigger...so you're dead no matter what condition you carried in. This is why training that induces stress is important, it conditions you so that you will be able to function under stresses that would shut down other people.

Sounds like you've actually thought this through, dosei. Refreshing!

PhotoFeller
11-17-2011, 11:46
It seems to me that the biggest factor in this discussion is training. With enough training and discipline +1 could be handled safely and with a very small chance of ND or AD, but also with enough training Israeli carry would be a very small factor in speed or performance under stress.

A Glock can be racked one handed by hooking the back sights on your belt and pushing down, and with enough training it could be done under stress, but again it still comes down to training.

As a side question, if a 3.5# connector is a legal liability for a justified self defense because it could be argued that you accidently shot someone, then could +1 also be a legal liability as well for the same reason? Just asking because I don’t know, and taking net advice for what it is worth….

I'm not a lawyer, but it seems carrying Condition 1 would be a legal problem in a contested SD shooting case if the defendant can't prove that he had the necessary training and experience to justify using that carry method. Prosecutors love simple arguments the jury can easily understand: "The defendant was carrying a firearm in the most dangerous way. It was cocked with a deadly hollow point bullet in the chamber. Furthermore, he was not adequately trained in the use of this lethal device. Little wonder the victim is dead at the hands of a careless gun owner". You better hope there are some closet NRA members on that jury.

Savvy prosecutors would also ask through discovery if the defendant participates in gun forums. If forum posts, which are public information, would be useful as evidence to show a careless or cavalier attitude about carry methods, they will presented to the jury in great detail.

Yea, how we carry and how we post can become legal issues.

ithaca_deerslayer
11-17-2011, 11:58
I'm not a lawyer, but it seems carrying Condition 1 would be a legal problem in a contested SD shooting case if the defendant can't prove that he had the necessary training and experience to justify using that carry method. Prosecutors love simple arguments the jury can easily understand: "The defendant was carrying a firearm in the most dangerous way. It was cocked with a deadly hollow point bullet in the chamber. Furthermore, he was not adequately trained in the use of this lethal device. Little wonder the victim is dead at the hands of a careless gun owner". You better hope there are some closet NRA members on that jury.

Savvy prosecutors would also ask through discovery if the defendant participates in gun forums. If forum posts, which are public information, would be useful as evidence to show a careless or cavalier attitude about carry methods, they will presented to the jury in great detail.

Yea, how we carry and how we post can become legal issues.

Personally, I've never found those arguments very compelling. While we want to follow the letter of the law, we don't want to be too caught up in how a prosecuter might try to twist facts.

Instead, we first want to stay safe while following the law. If we are in the process of being murdered, we want to stop it as effectively as we can.

My 2 cents :)

Chesafreak
11-17-2011, 12:08
Most of us choose our weapons, gear, and training in order to give us an edge should we ever have to defend ourselves. IMHO, Israeli carry takes away that edge, maybe even handicaps us.

It seems to me that some of the people in this thread aren't trying to debate Israeli carry, they are trying to spread the gospel and nothing we say will deter them. They have their mind made up. To each his own. Me: I'll do just fine with my trigger properly covered by a good holster, and keep my finger off the trigger until ready to go bang. If a DA wants to make a case of me carrying a round chambered, that logically implies that I'm alive to stand trial. 'Nuff said.

dosei
11-17-2011, 12:44
As a side question, if a 3.5# connector is a legal liability for a justified self defense because it could be argued that you accidentally shot someone, then could +1 also be a legal liability as well for the same reason?

Not likely...at least in the US. Mainly due to the fact that chamber-loaded carry has be the dominant norm in the US for a few decades now, and there have not been any notable cases where such an argument was used. Thus we have an established acceptance of the practice. Plus, whether carried chamber-empty or chamber-loaded, the chamber would be loaded by the time it was pointed at the "alleged BG". So chamber-empty carry is just as much of a "legal liability" as chamber-loaded in your scenario.

PEC-Memphis
11-17-2011, 12:51
This certainly can be tested.

Try it both ways in IDPA or some similar course setup, and compare times.

Heck, I think drawing and shooting on target with a Glock 17 is quicker than with a Beretta 92 with the safety off. The reason is that long heavy first shot of the Beretta.

And I also think drawing and shooting on target with the Beretta safety off is easier than doing so with the safety on.

And I also think drawing and shooting on target with the Beretta safety on and with a round chambered is faster than with a Glock with a round unchambered.

Those are my opinions, and based on my own testing. But you can certainly do those kinds of tests and see how it works out for you.

The thing I like about IDPA for this sort of stuff, is it adds a little bit of stress. People watching you, waiting for the buzzer, trying to beat Joe Betterthanyou, someone else is running the clock, etc. Certainly no bullets flying back at you, but it is at least more stressful than standing in your backyard and doing the same type of moves all alone with nobody watching.

Well there is a way to test chamber empty carry for safety, reliability, and speed in action.

Go into IDPA and use a chamber empty weapon for say a years worth of matches.

1. See if you can draw fast and reliability chamber a round without an AD/ND or induced jam.

2.See how fast you are doing this compared to those with fully loaded guns who don't have to do this.

3. See how many accidents others have drawing their weapons (I bet none.)

I also bet though you will find it's a bit more hazardous chamber a round fast under pressure as well as more prone to inducing a jam. And a bit slower to.

Oh, and when they demand one handed shooting, you will have to figure out how to safely chamber a round one handed. Can be done, but not with any real speed.

Deaf

Already done: http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1280836

Experiment - Chambered Vs Unchambered Vs Calf OC
We had a little experiment with the first three (3) CoFs, at our weekly IDPA match tonight - Here's what we did:

Each stage was set up where the targets were four (4) yards away - seven (7) rounds; not limited. T1 is shot standing in the open - two (2) shots to the body, one (1) to the head;then move to the barricade two (2) yards to the right;from behind cover, "pie" T2 & T3 with two (2) shots each;

Here's what was different:

Stage 1 - Cover garment required, firearm holstered with magazine inserted and round in the chamber

Stage 2 - Cover garment required, firearm holstered with magazine inserted and NO round in the chamber.

Stage 3 - California OC Style - No cover garment allowed, magazine in belt pouch, and NO magazine in firearm, and NO round in chamber.

I averaged the masters/experts/sharpshooters in one group, and marksmen, novices and unknowns in second group - then averaged everyone combined in the third group, and here are the results:



MA/EX/SS - (Stage 1/Stage 2/ Stage 3)

Raw Times - 5.31 / 5.50 / 6.04
Scores - 6.48 / 6.50 / 8.06

MM/NV/UK - (Stage 1/Stage 2/ Stage 3)

Raw Times - 6.50 / 6.40 / 6.94
Scores - 7.05 / 6.90 / 8.64

Combined - (Stage 1/Stage 2/ Stage 3)

Raw Times - 6.05 / 6.06 / 6.60
Scores - 6.84 / 6.75 / 8.42


Personally, I think that Stage 1 was at a little bit of a disadvantage in that everyone shot it "cold" - and if there had been a "warm up stage" before, the scenario in stage 1 might have scored a little better. But overall I think the results were pretty interesting - In every group, the raw times are about 2/3rds of a second, or less, apart for each method.

PhotoFeller
11-17-2011, 13:26
Personally, I've never found those arguments very compelling. While we want to follow the letter of the law, we don't want to be too caught up in how a prosecuter might try to twist facts.

Instead, we first want to stay safe while following the law. If we are in the process of being murdered, we want to stop it as effectively as we can.

My 2 cents :)

Opinions about how a prosecutor might use our personal facts against us in court are like opinions about deadly assaults where the gun might save us; it rarely happens (in your own words), but when we have to hire counsel to defend our firearm behavior, it becomes real and potentially compelling.

Noted experts have testified extensively for defendants where the prosecutor is seeking conviction using facts like the weapon and ammunition used, details about the defendant and the incident that thinly show reckless regard for life.

Carrying a firearm is far more than being ready to protect ourselves against assault. Equally important is carrying responsibly and safely, because we are accountable under the law. When we steer our auto into traffic, the action is more than driving from A to B. It requires driving responsibly and safely, because we are accountable under the law.

I think our opinions are not so far apart, ID.

ithaca_deerslayer
11-17-2011, 13:33
Personally, I think that Stage 1 was at a little bit of a disadvantage in that everyone shot it "cold" - and if there had been a "warm up stage" before, the scenario in stage 1 might have scored a little better. But overall I think the results were pretty interesting - In every group, the raw times are about 2/3rds of a second, or less, apart for each method.

You also had a lot going on in those stages.

I wonder if it would be worth testing something like 3 shots on 1 target, to simplify. Or even just 1 shot on 1 target. So the differences can be more directly related to the draw.

Should also try 1 handed.

But it looks from your test that most people can quickly get into the game with a two handed rack of the slide. Individual results might vary, so worth anyone in question to test themselves like this :)

ithaca_deerslayer
11-17-2011, 13:39
I think our opinions are not so far apart, ID.

Agree.

Just slight differences in what we put more emphasis on.

:wavey:

PhotoFeller
11-17-2011, 13:44
Already done: http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1280836

Experiment - Chambered Vs Unchambered Vs Calf OC
We had a little experiment with the first three (3) CoFs, at our weekly IDPA match tonight - Here's what we did:

Each stage was set up where the targets were four (4) yards away - seven (7) rounds; not limited. T1 is shot standing in the open - two (2) shots to the body, one (1) to the head;then move to the barricade two (2) yards to the right;from behind cover, "pie" T2 & T3 with two (2) shots each;

Here's what was different:

Stage 1 - Cover garment required, firearm holstered with magazine inserted and round in the chamber

Stage 2 - Cover garment required, firearm holstered with magazine inserted and NO round in the chamber.

Stage 3 - California OC Style - No cover garment allowed, magazine in belt pouch, and NO magazine in firearm, and NO round in chamber.

I averaged the masters/experts/sharpshooters in one group, and marksmen, novices and unknowns in second group - then averaged everyone combined in the third group, and here are the results:



MA/EX/SS - (Stage 1/Stage 2/ Stage 3)

Raw Times - 5.31 / 5.50 / 6.04
Scores - 6.48 / 6.50 / 8.06

MM/NV/UK - (Stage 1/Stage 2/ Stage 3)

Raw Times - 6.50 / 6.40 / 6.94
Scores - 7.05 / 6.90 / 8.64

Combined - (Stage 1/Stage 2/ Stage 3)

Raw Times - 6.05 / 6.06 / 6.60
Scores - 6.84 / 6.75 / 8.42


Personally, I think that Stage 1 was at a little bit of a disadvantage in that everyone shot it "cold" - and if there had been a "warm up stage" before, the scenario in stage 1 might have scored a little better. But overall I think the results were pretty interesting - In every group, the raw times are about 2/3rds of a second, or less, apart for each method.

Thanks for getting us back to the OP with something empirical. Interesting results. Were the competing groups basically equal in terms of ability to draw and present? Do you suppose most of them regularly practice Condition 1 techniques as opposed to the other methods tested?

PhotoFeller
11-17-2011, 14:10
Most of us choose our weapons, gear, and training in order to give us an edge should we ever have to defend ourselves. IMHO, Israeli carry takes away that edge, maybe even handicaps us.

It seems to me that some of the people in this thread aren't trying to debate Israeli carry, they are trying to spread the gospel and nothing we say will deter them. They have their mind made up. To each his own. Me: I'll do just fine with my trigger properly covered by a good holster, and keep my finger off the trigger until ready to go bang. If a DA wants to make a case of me carrying a round chambered, that logically implies that I'm alive to stand trial. 'Nuff said.

You've missed the point I've tried to make completely, Steve. You should carry however you feel is necessary, but shame on you if you can't show that you're competent to Carry Condition 1. I have come to support #1 for individuals who are prepared beyond buying a proper holster.

I happen to believe that Israeli is effective for people, like me, with limited skills; my gun will only be useful in a situation where I'm forewarned.

I also believe people who are accomplished with the Israeli method will be damned tough combatants.

My opinions are not supported by experience. Bottom line, IMHO, what you practice is a hell of a lot more important than what you preach.

ithaca_deerslayer
11-17-2011, 14:36
I happen to believe that Israeli is effective for people, like me, with limited skills; my gun will only be useful in a situation where I'm forewarned.


There is a hint of danger here.

Let's assume we are talking about a novice. Let's call him Bob. Bob takes a safety course, gets a concealed carry permit, buys a handgun, and now what? Bob doesn't feel comfortable with a chambered round, so he carries unchambered.

Is unchambered safer than chambered?

Bob still has to learn:
-- Treat all guns as if they are loaded.
-- Don't point the gun at anyone.
-- Keep his finger off the trigger until ready to fire.
-- Know the target and what is beyond.

Whether the gun is unchambered or chambered, he still has to be strict with those basic rules. Can he relax a bit, because, "come on, there's not really a round in the chamber."

That's where the potential danger starts to arise. Is he treating the unchambered gun differently than the chambered gun?

After most gun accidents that I hear about, the person usually says, "I didn't think the gun was loaded."

Chesafreak
11-17-2011, 14:46
You've missed the point I've tried to make completely, Steve. You should carry however you feel is necessary, but shame on you if you can't show that you're competent to Carry Condition 1. I have come to support #1 for individuals who are prepared beyond buying a proper holster.

I happen to believe that Israeli is effective for people, like me, with limited skills; my gun will only be useful in a situation where I'm forewarned.

I also believe people who are accomplished with the Israeli method will be damned tough combatants.

My opinions are not supported by experience. Bottom line, IMHO, what you practice is a hell of a lot more important than what you preach.

I think both of us have valid points. Bottom line, IMHO, is that the people who are having these AD/ND's most likely aren't following this forum like we are, are most likely not using a holster, and most likely will never benefit our advice because of their ignorance, so trying to convince them they need to Israeli Carry will only fall on deaf ears. The recent post about the guy who shot himself and died while waiting in his minivan (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1381528): He wasn't wearing a holster. Would Israeli carry have prevented this? I think it would. The point I'm trying to make is how do you convince the very people who need to IC (people who carry w/o holster like a thug) that they need to do so? I bet they aren't reading this forum! Those of us who are members here are most likely better trained and educated about firearms safety therefore my logic is that we are more likely to act safely and avoid an AD/ND.

If someone using Israeli Carry should practice drawing and chambering a round so it becomes second nature, do you think that the people that don't use a proper holster are going to be the type to practice often? I doubt it.

Shame on me if I can't show I'm competent to carry condition 1? How reasonable is that? Are we going to regulate that test into concealed carry training laws? How do I prove to you or anyone else I'm competent carrying in condition 1?

Lets face the facts: Carrying Isreali style must be practiced so the draw and racking the slide become second nature or we get killed by the BG when we draw and attempt to fire without a loaded chamber. If we were so practiced, then we most likely wouldn't suffer an AD in the first place. With training comes the knowledge that we need to use a proper holster that covers the trigger as well as keep our finger off the trigger until ready to fire.

engineermike
11-17-2011, 14:55
The guy or gal that will be grabbing you will always go for the right arm/hand. The person who has been watching you will always know which is your strong arm and that will determine their first move.

PhotoFeller
11-17-2011, 14:57
There is a hint of danger here.

Let's assume we are talking about a novice. Let's call him Bob. Bob takes a safety course, gets a concealed carry permit, buys a handgun, and now what? Bob doesn't feel comfortable with a chambered round, so he carries unchambered.

Is unchambered safer than chambered?

Bob still has to learn:
-- Treat all guns as if they are loaded.
-- Don't point the gun at anyone.
-- Keep his finger off the trigger until ready to fire.
-- Know the target and what is beyond.

Whether the gun is unchambered or chambered, he still has to be strict with those basic rules. Can he relax a bit, because, "come on, there's not really a round in the chamber."

That's where the potential danger starts to arise. Is he treating the unchambered gun differently than the chambered gun?

After most gun accidents that I hear about, the person usually says, "I didn't think the gun was loaded."

Your point is well taken. The same rules apply to unchambered and chambered guns. That isn't lost on me with five grand kids in the house frequently.

If you haven't noticed, I'm anal about the need for training and experience. My unyielding attitude about safety comes from a near disastrous incident as a young man learning to squirrel hunt with a family friend and mentor. I nearly shot him because I was inexperienced with a chambered single shot 20 gauge shotgun. He was unharmed, but I was changed forever.

An uncocked shotgun with a shell in the chamber won't harm anyone. Mix in inexperienced hands and excitement, and you have a recipe for disaster. By the way, this applies to Condition 1 and Israeli carry.

PEC-Memphis
11-17-2011, 15:00
Thanks for getting us back to the OP with something empirical. Interesting results. Were the competing groups basically equal in terms of ability to draw and present? Do you suppose most of them regularly practice Condition 1 techniques as opposed to the other methods tested?

It was a "typical" club level IDPA group - a mix of "unknown" classification (who had shot IDPA club level 3-10 times), MM, SS, EX & MA.

The majority of practice (90%+) is loaded to division capacity with a chambered round, manual safety on (if present), or hammer down. For stages 2 and 3, manual safeties were off (if present).

There is quite a bit of practice of IDPA legal reloads - SLR, TR and RWR. These reloads don't necessarily reinforce the mechanics/muscle memory of a draw/rack/shoot - ie. "unchambered" carry; but definitely helps in the (now fromer) California OC method.

There is some practice of clearance stoppages (Glock shooters less than 1911 shooters :) ). And sometimes (but not much) "unloaded gun in the box magazines on table" starts. This practice would help draw/rack/shoot and Calf OC.

One shooter (a SS) had a somewhat screwed up magazine insertion in stage 3 (I'm sure is seemed longer than it really was); he was shooting a single stack 1911 with no magwell. But otherwise, there weren't any shooter induced errors in the operation of the firearm.

This was the first stage of the match and everyone shot Stage 1 cold. By stage 2, everyone had a bit of a warm up on the stage - this probably helped the stage 2 times compared to the stage 1 times.

By stage 3, the MA and EX shooters were really trying to step up the speed. A MA had a complete miss on the head shot, an EX missed the perforation on the head by <1/8". This hurt the scores quite a bit - a 2.5s penalty on a 6s stage is pretty steep. The "familiarity" with the stage may have "hurt" more than it "helped" because people were pushing speed more.

Drawing and presentation were not a problem in any of the methods with this group of shooters. Arguably, an IDPA shooter who is upper "marksman" or higher, is probably several times more competent in gun handling skills and "combat accuracy speed" that an average CCW/HCP carrier. I would expect an average CCW/HCP carrier to have a greater variation in time for the three (3) methods in this CoF.

PhotoFeller
11-17-2011, 15:13
I think both of us have valid points. Bottom line, IMHO, is that the people who are having these AD/ND's most likely aren't following this forum like we are, are most likely not using a holster, and most likely will never benefit our advice because of their ignorance, so trying to convince them they need to Israeli Carry will only fall on deaf ears. The recent post about the guy who shot himself and died while waiting in his minivan (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1381528): He wasn't wearing a holster. Would Israeli carry have prevented this? I think it would. The point I'm trying to make is how do you convince the very people who need to IC (people who carry w/o holster like a thug) that they need to do so? I bet they aren't reading this forum! Those of us who are members here are most likely better trained and educated about firearms safety therefore my logic is that we are more likely to act safely and avoid an AD/ND.

If someone using Israeli Carry should practice drawing and chambering a round so it becomes second nature, do you think that the people that don't use a proper holster are going to be the type to practice often? I doubt it.

Shame on me if I can't show I'm competent to carry condition 1? How reasonable is that? Are we going to regulate that test into concealed carry training laws? How do I prove to you or anyone else I'm competent carrying in condition 1?

Lets face the facts: Carrying Isreali style must be practiced so the draw and racking the slide become second nature or we get killed by the BG when we draw and attempt to fire without a loaded chamber. If we were so practiced, then we most likely wouldn't suffer an AD in the first place. With training comes the knowledge that we need to use a proper holster that covers the trigger as well as keep our finger off the trigger until ready to fire.

I can't disagree with any of your points.

The "shame on you" comment was meant to express the accountability we all bear by carrying lethal weapons. You don't have to prove your competence to me or anyone else unless you are an unfortunate participant in a shooting incident. Then, if the facts are clear you were the intended victim, you won't have to prove competence to the court. If the facts are even slightly less clear, a wrongful death civil suit by the thug's mama or his grieving wife might become a serious pain in the wallet.

Nothing I said was personal. I'm in this discussion strictly to opine that Israeli carry isn't wrong for everyone and CC has to be done with maturity and competence. Again, I'm just an old peckerwood with opinions supported by little more than Hoosier common sence.

Thanks for your indulgence. I truly appreciate the civility showed by everyone. Exchanging views is fun and interesting if anger doesn't get in the way.

Deaf Smith
11-17-2011, 18:09
Among all of the people who carry firearms in the US, I believe there are more incidents of ND than there are nose-to-nose assaults where Condition 1 carry saves the victim.

How can anyone argue that a chambered gun is as safe as one with an empty chamber? If the argument is that a properly holstered gun won't fire itself, I would agree IF the gun isn't strapped on, taken off, cleaned, laid in your underwear in public restrooms, fired at the range, shifted for comfort while driving, hung on the changing room door at Macy's, moved from the belt to the gym locker, and on and on. A static state weapon is perfectly harmless with one in the chamber; a weapon carried everyday is not a static weapon.

I've got no qualms about competent people carrying Condition 1. It strikes me as disingenuous to pretend that a chambered gun in a proper holster is all right for everyone, across the board. Some people just shouldn't carry a chambered firearm.

It is quite safe to carry a C1 weapon with a proper holster (like mine pictured.)

http://glocktalk.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=216117&d=1303945890

If it's holstered, it's safe, when upholstered it's ready to fire. Just that simple. The holster BECOMES a safety.

And one learns to KYFFOTFT until you are ready to use the weapon, C1 or C3!

The trigger is the 'go' button, just as the accelerator in a car is the 'go' pedal! One keeps their finger, or foot, off it until they want to go! And as any driver of a car knows, to leave stuff on the floorboard where it can get under the accelerator can lead to unintended acceleration (or lack of any acceleration!)

Same goes with guns. Put a weapon in your pocket without the right holster to protect the trigger leads to AD/NDs. Put one in the correct holster and there really is no way to have a ND/AD unless you take the weapon out and fiddle with it.

You will see in any IDPA match people drawing fast from under garments with no problems. And their weapons are defiantly C1.

Yes I do know a few friends who are so nervous about packing their guns (one a Glock, the other a Bersa .380) and they carry them C3. It is more for peace of mind than any actual danger. Now neither of them train much. Either at just shooting or how to draw and chamber their weapon (all are necessary skills) So I'm not sure C3 helps or hurts them. Both do have good holsters but just do not like C1 (and my father still has his Colt OP .38 with just 5 rounds, empty chamber under hammer!)

Yes I do feel C3 is inferior for most people. But ultimately the decision is theirs.

Deaf

Carrys
11-18-2011, 09:19
I have personally been involved in more than one gunfight, mainly due to my being a retired LEO.

All I can say is this, had my weapon not been ready to fire the exact moment I drew it.....I probably would not be here.

You are free to make your own choice with what makes you the most comfortable, I've made my choice.

Ummagumma
11-18-2011, 09:58
In preparation for CC and having a good understanding of _my_ level of experience, I decided that the safest yet the most effective method for _me_ is C1 with an aftermarket trigger safety (Siderlock, currently being snipped). Switching this safety while drawing should be easy. There's no way tho do it accidentally. (I tried a FN with a safety lever and it appeared to me that this lever could be accidentally bumped while holstering). And it would buy me some time should a BG get hold of my gun (this is a rather unorthodox safety location, most people would be puzzled at first).

C3 just doesn't make sense - for me at least. I just can't see myself under pressure racking slide one handed. And even two handed, it may require a second I don't have.

I gave this a lot of thought, and did much research. This works for me, doesn't mean it's right for someone else. Everybody should evaluate their own particular situation.

Rustydude
11-18-2011, 16:44
I carry a loaded weapon, in a holster that covers the trigger. Quietly getting your weapon on target may just make the difference of surviving an encounter, I would rather not have to rack the slide, and announce "I have a Gun" before firing it.

dudel
11-26-2011, 05:16
Cops the world over don't use this method. If it's so great, why not?

As far as using the belt method to rack one-handed, that won't work with many sights because they are sloped instead of squared off.

Anyone that worried about an ND needs A) more confidence and training and B) maybe a gun with a manual safety lever

Do the Israeli's even use Israeli Carry today? I don't know but I'd bet against it.

You need to check that again. Condition 1 is primarily a US thing. (as is casting and shooting lead).

The much of the world (LEO and Military) generally goes condition 3 for handguns. I know it's the case for South America and much of Europe. Israeli military teaches and uses condition 3. Since most everyone there is in the military or has had military training, I suspect they would continue to use what they've been trained in.

As always, it's a matter of how you were trained and how you train.

dudel
11-26-2011, 05:27
Slide manipulations utilize gross motor skills...pulling the trigger (properly), however, requires fine motor skills. If your motor skills have gone so completely to pot that you are unable to manipulate the slide, you will have no chance of being able to manipulate the trigger...so you're dead no matter what condition you carried in. This is why training that induces stress is important, it conditions you so that you will be able to function under stresses that would shut down other people.

Dang! There you go applying logic to the situation. Well said.

Training (and I don't mean just reading a book or watching a video).

Landric
11-26-2011, 06:56
All I have to say on this subject:

The huge majority of the times I have had to draw and point a handgun at someone, I had a flashlight in my other hand. Yes, its possible to rack the slide on a duty holster or belt using the rear sight, but it is not ideal. Chambering a round under stress, especially if your other hand is occupied, is not something you want to have to do.

Anyone who isn't comfortable carrying a handgun fully loaded shouldn't be carrying at all.

alaskacop556
11-26-2011, 15:07
Condition 3 is an outdated and unsafe way to carry or handle any firearm you personally use for self defense. If you cant follow the basic rules of firearms safety, don't carry a handgun.....

Most ND situations I have dealt with involve; guess what; someone who carries or handles handguns in contition 3 and thinks the gun is unloaded...

Lord
11-28-2011, 18:40
I am wondering about opinions on this method. I would like to hear from people who have had "real world" experience, like cops or someone who has had to draw due to extreme circumstances.

I used to carry "Israeli". I was new to carrying, only for about a year at the time. I did have to draw on someone outside my home. It was with a glock 19. I was fortunate enough to not have to fire, and the motion was smooth enough for me. That is because I practiced. And there is your key.

I now carry condition 1, in a kydex OWB. I can draw smoothly and put two on the paper in relatively quick fashion. That's because I practice. Is it sinking in?

The key, no matter which way you carry, is to practice and stay proficient. the purpose to carrying is to defend in high stress, imminent danger situations. practicing your draw and self defense stance is every bit as important as not losing your cool. Otherwise, you could be carrying a cannon, packed and loaded, and it won't make a difference if/when the time comes if you're not prepared and practiced in its use.

id1otbox
11-28-2011, 19:03
In reality over 98% of the Israeli army does not carry a handgun. Mossad carry is designed for Mossad agents which are comparable to special forces here in America. It is not designed as a civilian style of weapon carry. If you are trained well enough it doesn't matter how you carry.

Glockbuster
11-28-2011, 20:45
I have read all the posts on this thread and I must say that PhotoFeller has made some valuable realistic contributions in his posting.

1) Both methods are fit for different carry methods and or needs and circumstances.

2) Don´t buy into this BS that condition 1 is the only method and condition 3 or Israeli carry is stupid or inadequate.

3) Much less, don´t buy into the BS that if you cannot carry C1 then you need to get more training, or that you are unfit to carry if you cannot "handle" C1.

4) Finally, self defense is not a quick draw contest or an old west duel where the fastest draw wins. You see, your attacker already has the lead. It takes a special set of circumstances to be able to use your weapon in self defense. Therefore, anyone using his or her weapon for offensive purposes (this includes law enforcement) cannot be compared to a citizen who carries for self defense. Law enforcement carry is different than CCW. The whole mindset is different. They are trained to deal and engage what you can probably stay away from.

Lior
11-28-2011, 22:14
I have read all the posts on this thread and I must say that PhotoFeller has made some valuable realistic contributions in his posting.

1) Both methods are fit for different carry methods and or needs and circumstances.

2) Don´t buy into this BS that condition 1 is the only method and condition 3 or Israeli carry is stupid or inadequate.

3) Much less, don´t buy into the BS that if you cannot carry C1 then you need to get more training, or that you are unfit to carry if you cannot "handle" C1.

4) Finally, self defense is not a quick draw contest or an old west duel where the fastest draw wins. You see, your attacker already has the lead. It takes a special set of circumstances to be able to use your weapon in self defense. Therefore, anyone using his or her weapon for offensive purposes (this includes law enforcement) cannot be compared to a citizen who carries for self defense. Law enforcement carry is different than CCW. The whole mindset is different. They are trained to deal and engage what you can probably stay away from.

Excellent post, Glockbuster.

As for the Israeli Army's use of pistols, it has become decimated to the point that when I last deployed on the Golan Heights on border defense duty, I was informed by some regulars that pistols were banned on base. I told them to look elsewhere if they were offended by my Glock.

knoxrocks222
11-28-2011, 22:29
think about it this way.......all the other guy has to do is squeeze the trigger, you have to draw, remember to take the safety off (can be tricky when under stress), put a round in the chamber, aquire a target, and notify the ER that they are about to have you come in with mutiple gun shot wounds......just put a round in the chamber and keep the trigger covered people!!! carrying a gun without a round in the chamber is like taking your wheels off your car everytime you park it...sure you dont have to worry about it going anywhere, but whats going to happen when you need to go somewhere in a hurry

why not just carry it field stripped in your back pocket....

Glockbuster
11-29-2011, 08:16
think about it this way.......all the other guy has to do is squeeze the trigger, you have to draw, remember to take the safety off (can be tricky when under stress), put a round in the chamber, aquire a target, and notify the ER that they are about to have you come in with mutiple gun shot wounds......just put a round in the chamber and keep the trigger covered people!!! carrying a gun without a round in the chamber is like taking your wheels off your car everytime you park it...sure you dont have to worry about it going anywhere, but whats going to happen when you need to go somewhere in a hurry

why not just carry it field stripped in your back pocket....

Precisely why you need to consider other options instead of sealing your fate against a drawn gun. Those options might not include drawing yor weapon first hand. It is there that the difference between C1 and C3 is not that big and certain virtues of C3 might tilt the balance toward the preferred method of carry for some folks.

series1811
12-02-2011, 08:10
In reality over 98% of the Israeli army does not carry a handgun. Mossad carry is designed for Mossad agents which are comparable to special forces here in America. It is not designed as a civilian style of weapon carry. If you are trained well enough it doesn't matter how you carry.

Exactly. People are missing the point. Mossad agents primarily carry handguns for offensive use, not defensive use. Huge difference. And, they are operating in areas where an ND would have much worse consequences for them than for a typical US gun carrier.

Glenn E. Meyer
12-02-2011, 10:15
To me this is a very simple issue. I've been trained in one handed gun manipulation. However, it is slower and more prone to slips.

Years, ago, I busted my wrist and actually was signed up for some injured shooters classes. How convenient. Thus, I can manipulate a gun one handed.

But what is the risk in the real world. You can fall down in a critical incident - I did, but not in an incident and lose the use of a hand.

Just awhile ago, I took a FOF/knife class and injured my nondominant (the racking hand) in the exercises. Thus, for a bit - unchambered carry would be quite difficult - wearing a fiberglass thingee over your arm.

Thus, I conclude the risk of losing ability in a close quarters encounter is real enough that I chose not to handicap myself. I have trained enough with various handguns that I feel confident enough to avoid an ND. Famous last words? I've certainly seen them.

In my last FOF class, we had opponents inches from us. You cannot always see the opponent at a significant distance. Drawing into a retention position while fending off a physical attack was the way to go. Hard to go Israeli if my other hand is used in the H2H component.

Thus, the differential risk to me is convincing to me to avoid unchambered hand gun carry.

Nakanokalronin
12-02-2011, 10:35
This topic shows up on Glock Talk more than any other gun forum.

Israeli carry exists because they use so many different sidearms to arm their military.

Empty chamber = to many extra chances for a malfunction.

Can't predict that you'll have a ledge, edge, belt or your shoe available for one hand racking.

Nothing negative about carrying one in the chamber unless you lack gun handling/safety.

Use a holster.

Train to rack with one hand but don't rely on it.

Google condition 3 for lots of topics on this subject.

Here is your Israeli carry. Listen and realize why they carry this way: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRdZ3hZ8y-w

Lord
12-02-2011, 11:46
Exactly. People are missing the point. Mossad agents primarily carry handguns for offensive use, not defensive use. Huge difference. And, they are operating in areas where an ND would have much worse consequences for them than for a typical US gun carrier.

No, respectfully, I think you and the others focusing on the Israeli military are missing the point. The point here is carrying Condition 1/2/3, not the finer specifics of how the Israeli's do.

It's called Israeli carry because that's how they do/did it. Just like carrying a gun in your belt with no holster is referred to as mexican carry. When people mention that, it doesn't become an "I know more than you about Mexicans and how they carry" discussion, and neither should this one.

The topic here is should an individual carry his/her pistol with one in the chamber (condition 1), unracked (condition 2), or california carry (condition 3), with the main focus on 1 or two. It doesn't really matter who in Israel carries how on what day of the week. It's just that Condition 2 is more common in Israel and thus named for their method. Can we let that part go now? I stick to my other post. It doesn't matter how anyone carries as long as they practice/train/practice/train/practice their method until they are proficient.

I got into a discussion with a former LEO last night. We discussed a shooting recently where a BG was attempting to steal a car. The owner came out of the store, was carrying condition 1, opened fire on the BG. The BG, also armed, fired back. The owner peppered the area with rounds, never hitting his own vehicle or the BG, but the BG scored two hits on the owner. The owner, possessing a CHL and carrying condition 1, was not practiced/trained/experienced enough so no method would have helped him and THAT is the main problem no matter how you carry.

dosei
12-02-2011, 13:32
Looks like a refresher on Carry Conditions is in order (after reading Lord's post)

Carry Conditions (as created/defined by Col. Jeff Cooper):

Condition Zero: Round chambered, full magazine, hammer/striker cocked, safety off.

Condition One: Round chambered, full magazine, hammer/striker cocked, safety on.

Condition Two: Round chambered, full magazine, hammer/striker down.

Condition Three: Chamber empty, full magazine, hammer/striker down.

Condition Four: Chamber empty, no magazine, hammer/striker down.

Lord
12-02-2011, 13:39
Looks like a refresher on Carry Conditions is in order (after reading Lord's post)

Carry Conditions (as created/defined by Col. Jeff Cooper):

Condition Zero: Round chambered, full magazine, hammer cocked, safety off.

Condition One: Round chambered, full magazine, hammer cocked, safety on.

Condition Two: Round chambered, full magazine, hammer down.

Condition Three: Chamber empty, full magazine, hammer down.

Condition Four: Chamber empty, no magazine, hammer down.

ok whatever... interesting thing... this doesn't address pistols that don't have hammers, and regardless of how much you know and like showing it off vs what I may or may not know, it doesn't change several things:
1. who cares what branch of military in the Israeli forces carry racked or not
2. regardless of the method you employ to carry, you still need to train and practice

My post was based on another post that defined stages of carry.

Originally Posted by PEC-Memphis View Post


Experiment - Chambered Vs Unchambered Vs Calf OC
We had a little experiment with the first three (3) CoFs, at our weekly IDPA match tonight - Here's what we did:


Here's what was different:

Stage 1 - Cover garment required, firearm holstered with magazine inserted and round in the chamber

Stage 2 - Cover garment required, firearm holstered with magazine inserted and NO round in the chamber.

Stage 3 - California OC Style - No cover garment allowed, magazine in belt pouch, and NO magazine in firearm, and NO round in chamber.

dosei
12-02-2011, 14:01
ok whatever... interesting thing... this doesn't address pistols that don't have hammers

Hammer/Striker.....Tomato/Tomato
(Never the less, the post has been edited to clarify)

My post was based on another post that defined stages of carry.

Originally Posted by PEC-Memphis View Post


Experiment - Chambered Vs Unchambered Vs Calf OC
We had a little experiment with the first three (3) CoFs, at our weekly IDPA match tonight - Here's what we did:


Here's what was different:

Stage 1 - Cover garment required, firearm holstered with magazine inserted and round in the chamber

Stage 2 - Cover garment required, firearm holstered with magazine inserted and NO round in the chamber.

Stage 3 - California OC Style - No cover garment allowed, magazine in belt pouch, and NO magazine in firearm, and NO round in chamber.

Those are not "Stages of Carry", those are Stages at a shoot. Go to an IDPA match (or any other action type shooting match) and you'll understand. The matches consist of multiple stages....for example:
Stage 1 could be "Ambushed while dropping brown trout"
Stage 2 could be "Robbery while working behind the counter at a store"
Stage 3 could be "Wake up to intruders in the house"

Stage = Scenario (Not Condition of Carry)

In the shoot PEC-Memphis refers to:
Stage 1 = Carry Concealed in Condition 1
Stage 2 = Carry Concealed in Condition 3
Stage 3 = Carry Concealed in Condition 4


Hopefully this clears things up just a little...

Lord
12-02-2011, 14:07
Hammer/Striker.....Tomato/Tomato
(Never the less, the post has been edited to clarify)



Those are not "Stages of Carry", those are Stages at a shoot. Go to an IDPA match (or any other action type shooting match) and you'll understand. The matches consist of multiple stages....for example:
Stage 1 could be "Ambushed while dropping brown trout"
Stage 2 could be "Robbery while working behind the counter at a store"
Stage 3 could be "Wake up to intruders in the house"

Stage = Scenario (Not Condition of Carry)

In the shoot PEC-Memphis refers to:
Stage 1 = Carry Concealed in Condition 1
Stage 2 = Carry Concealed in Condition 3
Stage 3 = Carry Concealed in Condition 4


Hopefully this clears things up just a little...

Thanks it does, but once again, still... nm. I've said it enough
and on Glocks and similar ... well nm again

IT0
12-02-2011, 14:28
No, respectfully, I think you and the others focusing on the Israeli military are missing the point. The point here is carrying Condition 1/2/3, not the finer specifics of how the Israeli's do.

It's called Israeli carry because that's how they do/did it. Just like carrying a gun in your belt with no holster is referred to as mexican carry. When people mention that, it doesn't become an "I know more than you about Mexicans and how they carry" discussion, and neither should this one.

The topic here is should an individual carry his/her pistol with one in the chamber (condition 1), unracked (condition 2), or california carry (condition 3), with the main focus on 1 or two. It doesn't really matter who in Israel carries how on what day of the week. It's just that Condition 2 is more common in Israel and thus named for their method. Can we let that part go now? I stick to my other post. It doesn't matter how anyone carries as long as they practice/train/practice/train/practice their method until they are proficient.

.....


That sums it up quite nicely. Train, train, train and it does not really matter how you carry.

Genin
12-02-2011, 14:57
Your question was doomed from the start because you asked for REAL LIFE EXPERIENCES. The vast majority of GTalkers (other than military and LEO) only have experience GTalking and in SD classrooms.

I feel comfortable speculating that not one person in the GTalk kingdom can answer your question from first hand gun fighting knowledge; most dismiss the Israeli method because of popular notions about split second reaction time needed for attacks coming from 7 yards, needing to rack with one hand, etc.; the arguments all come from TV, magazines, Internet, SD instructors and here. I believe most LEO and military experience wouldn't have relevance to the Condition1 vs Israeii debate.

Forum debates are healthy and can be great learning opportunities for folks who have an open mind, consider the posts on their merit, and form an opinion using logic. With respect to gun fighting techniques, this venue is all about opinions supported only by what someone else has told us.

There are some good posts in this thread that offer balanced points of view. Are any based on first hand experience? Probably not.

I used to be a rather aggressive young man and didn't shy away from fights. I've been in some pretty nasty ones and my hands bear the scars of my more foolish days. I can tell you that fights are nasty and happen fast. I'd argue that most people who even try and debate Israeli vs. Condition 1 have never been in a serious knock down drag out street altercation. They happen fast, you can't go down to the ground or your heads getting kicked by their buddies, and trust me someone ALWAYS jumps in....just hope they are on your side. Having to use 2 hands to manipulate the weapon or do a one handed drill is not optimal by a long shot. If you are someone who wants to prepare for the worst and give themselves every advantage then carry condition 1. If you are not responsible enough to carry a firearm in condition 1 then don't freaking own one. END

KalashniKEV
12-02-2011, 15:03
If you're arming a lot of poorly trained people with all kinds of different weapons, Israeli Carry is a sound policy decision... especially if "Force Protection" means protecting conscripts from shooting each other, and the vast majority of contact comes from indirect fire and IEDs.

SCmasterblaster
12-02-2011, 16:06
Looks like a refresher on Carry Conditions is in order (after reading Lord's post)

Carry Conditions (as created/defined by Col. Jeff Cooper):

Condition Zero: Round chambered, full magazine, hammer/striker cocked, safety off.

Condition One: Round chambered, full magazine, hammer/striker cocked, safety on.

Condition Two: Round chambered, full magazine, hammer/striker down.

Condition Three: Chamber empty, full magazine, hammer/striker down.

Condition Four: Chamber empty, no magazine, hammer/striker down.


SO I guess that fully-loaded Glocks are all in Condition Zero-and-a-half. The striker is half-cocked when a Glock's slide is forward.

Lord
12-02-2011, 16:09
I used to be a rather aggressive young man and didn't shy away from fights. I've been in some pretty nasty ones and my hands bear the scars of my more foolish days. I can tell you that fights are nasty and happen fast. I'd argue that most people who even try and debate Israeli vs. Condition 1 have never been in a serious knock down drag out street altercation. They happen fast, you can't go down to the ground or your heads getting kicked by their buddies, and trust me someone ALWAYS jumps in....just hope they are on your side. Having to use 2 hands to manipulate the weapon or do a one handed drill is not optimal by a long shot. If you are someone who wants to prepare for the worst and give themselves every advantage then carry condition 1. If you are not responsible enough to carry a firearm in condition 1 then don't freaking own one. END

if you were in that many fights, then you obviously were where you shouldn't have been. Having to worry about getting into an immediate beat down also hints at being someplace where it's probable or likely to happen, and once again you're in a place where you should not be. having to worry about getting beaten down like that suggests that you've pissed a lot of people off and have to actually worry about a spontaneous ass whipping breaking out. once again, a place you should not be. Arming yourself so you can draw an fire in a place you shouldn't be, is a bit akin to looking for trouble so you can deal out more trouble... wait for it... again, a place you should not be. recommending to someone that they carry condition 1 just because they have to worry about getting a surprise beat down, IMO, is like telling them to go look for trouble in, yes you guessed it, a place they should not be.

you shouldn't be looking for trouble, you should be looking to avoid it. using your weapon is a last effort at avoiding that trouble, and attempting to put a stop to it, IF it should find you, not the other way around

Lord
12-02-2011, 16:12
SO I guess that fully-loaded Glocks are all in Condition Zero-and-a-half. The striker is half-cocked when a Glock's slide is forward.

thanks. that's part of why I consider condition 1,2,3 as I do.

Deaf Smith
12-02-2011, 17:06
SO I guess that fully-loaded Glocks are all in Condition Zero-and-a-half. The striker is half-cocked when a Glock's slide is forward.

No, the 'safety' is on.. it's on the trigger and if you keep your finger off the trigger the safety will stay 'on'.

Simple, no?

Deaf

Glenn E. Meyer
12-02-2011, 18:22
You can get into a physical altercation anywhere. If another poster went to risky places, that's irrelevant to the fact that bad things can happen in the supermarket line or parking lot. You don't walk around like an Aegis cruiser to have some preternatural ability to avoid a close encounter. Sounds good that you are always alert but that's crap. Get on line in the bank and offend a nut in back ouf you.

The IDPA is well and good for time dimensions. Quality FOF based on common social encounters - not going to a risky bar - will convince you that Israeli carry is a disadvantage.

But those with Condition Orange Permanent ESP and the DEW Line mounted on their head won't be convinced.

series1811
12-02-2011, 18:34
No, respectfully, I think you and the others focusing on the Israeli military are missing the point. The point here is carrying Condition 1/2/3, not the finer specifics of how the Israeli's do.

It's called Israeli carry because that's how they do/did it. Just like carrying a gun in your belt with no holster is referred to as mexican carry. When people mention that, it doesn't become an "I know more than you about Mexicans and how they carry" discussion, and neither should this one.

The topic here is should an individual carry his/her pistol with one in the chamber (condition 1), unracked (condition 2), or california carry (condition 3), with the main focus on 1 or two. It doesn't really matter who in Israel carries how on what day of the week. It's just that Condition 2 is more common in Israel and thus named for their method. Can we let that part go now? I stick to my other post. It doesn't matter how anyone carries as long as they practice/train/practice/train/practice their method until they are proficient.

I got into a discussion with a former LEO last night. We discussed a shooting recently where a BG was attempting to steal a car. The owner came out of the store, was carrying condition 1, opened fire on the BG. The BG, also armed, fired back. The owner peppered the area with rounds, never hitting his own vehicle or the BG, but the BG scored two hits on the owner. The owner, possessing a CHL and carrying condition 1, was not practiced/trained/experienced enough so no method would have helped him and THAT is the main problem no matter how you carry.

Yes, I do agree with you. Many people think buying a gun means they are trained to use it. Why, I don't know. You don't see people buying automotive tool sets and thinking they know how to overhaul an engine. I wouldn't carry an unchambered handgun for self defense, myself. But, I was trained to carry one in the pipe, so I do.

I guess I was looking at it from the perspective of having trained with the Israelis in '95 for a couple of weeks. I found they do a lot of things differently over there, often for reasons we don't understand. Everywhere we went, there were kids carrying M-16's with magazines rubber banded to the handguard.

I asked why they bothered to carry them like that and was told they didn't carry them for protection, they were soldiers who were carrying them everywhere they went because there was a seven year prison sentence for losing one. :shocked:

Like I said, they do a lot of things that had to be explained to me twice. :supergrin:

dosei
12-02-2011, 18:57
SO I guess that fully-loaded Glocks are all in Condition Zero-and-a-half. The striker is half-cocked when a Glock's slide is forward.

While not "fully" cocked, it is pre-loaded enough to fire a round if released from it's pre-cocked position...so it is commonly lumped in with the fully cocked guns. And unless/until your finger (or something else) is on the trigger, the safeties are all "on". So a Glock with a round in the chamber is Condition 1.

unit1069
12-02-2011, 19:25
I've carried both Condition 1 and Condition 2. Like all of us who take the lawful right to keep and bear arms seriously I evaluate things over time as I hope to progress. No matter what side you come down on in this issue I think we can all agree that none of us wants to become the poster child for irresponsible or reckless individual Second Amendment rights.

When I first purchased a handgun in 2005 I was too nervous to carry one in the chamber and so I carried Condition 2. Over the next couple of years I learned to appreciate and accept the fact that seconds matter, so I carried Condition 1.

In the past year or so --- reading as much as I could on a variety of CCW subjects --- I calculated that the odds of a negligent discharge (however it came about) is at least equal to my being suddenly confronted with a life-or-death encounter. Because innocent people may be harmed or killed through a ND, and because it might lead to losing my freedom as well as my constitutional rights, I am now carrying Condition 2 again. It's not like I'm walking around completely unmindful of my surroundings or developing situations; it's just that I have a concern that Condition 1 combined with everyday routine creates its own danger.

Let me be perfectly clear; I cede the Condition 1 argument to those who feel that's the only way to carry and I agree with those arguments. My rather staid and predictable life leads me to tilt towards safety first with the gun/holster I currently use, but as in the past my opinion and custom are subject to change. After all, each of us has an individual right and responsibility when we choose to carry a lethal weapon and at this moment in time I prefer to concentrate on situational awareness while carrying Condition 2.

jortega
12-03-2011, 08:11
I'm not a lawyer, but it seems carrying Condition 1 would be a legal problem in a contested SD shooting case if the defendant can't prove that he had the necessary training and experience to justify using that carry method. Prosecutors love simple arguments the jury can easily understand: "The defendant was carrying a firearm in the most dangerous way. It was cocked with a deadly hollow point bullet in the chamber. Furthermore, he was not adequately trained in the use of this lethal device. Little wonder the victim is dead at the hands of a careless gun owner". You better hope there are some closet NRA members on that jury.

Savvy prosecutors would also ask through discovery if the defendant participates in gun forums. If forum posts, which are public information, would be useful as evidence to show a careless or cavalier attitude about carry methods, they will presented to the jury in great detail.

Yea, how we carry and how we post can become legal issues.

My dad always said you can always get out of jail, you can't get out of the tomb. Rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

id1otbox
12-03-2011, 12:50
Israeli carry is a OFFENSIVE carry. Designed by Mossad agents aboard planes to deter terrorist attacks. It is not logical in a self defense situation when you are caught off guard. It is meant to be used on terrorists who are caught off guard not the other way around. If you are going to assassinate someone you have time to rack the slide before you unload in their head however you don't have time to rack the slide when your been jumped in a dark alley.

Glenn E. Meyer
12-03-2011, 16:40
Situational awareness sounds great and does work in some scenarios. But we know from the real world, that critical incidents can happen in seconds. Look at the four officers who were just fired upon at coffee. Sure, you would have have better situational awareness to detect a draw from a stranger, get the gun out and into action.

Having some knowledge of vigilance - you cannot maintain a high level of alert despite reading the Cooper Color Codes.

You will be behind the curve at some time. Why be in further back?

It goes like this:

1. Unchambered:
a. If you feel that you lack competence
b. Possible retention benefit

2. Chambered:
a. Quicker
b. Demands some competence
c. Deals with problem of a hand being out of action due to injury, restraint, need for H2H or manipulation of other gadgetry.

You decide the risk profile. If you think you will ND due to lack of training, I honestly have little sympathy.

Also, the argument that you only go to nice places is also crap. Nuts can be anywhere and nice places attract predators. Need we list incidents.

One sometimes has to rationalize a decision and that rationalization takes on a pseudo-logic. Take that for what it is worth. Cognitive dissonance. Well known effect. Once you adopt a position - esp. if it related to your perceived warrior status - arguments just bounce off. I wonder if Israeli carry (the Victors of the Six Day war and thus warriors) was called French carry - would the argument go away?

I don't mean to be negative, but that';s how I see this endless argument.

KalashniKEV
12-03-2011, 20:20
Israeli carry is a OFFENSIVE carry. Designed by Mossad agents aboard planes to deter terrorist attacks.

Oh-My-Goooooood...

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever read on GlockTalk.

Israeli Carry is CONSCRIPT carry. Designed so this chick doesn't shoot herself.

http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r220/Kalashnikev/08.jpg

id1otbox
12-03-2011, 20:55
That chick will not be issued a hand gun. Along with the vast majority of the Israeli army. The only ones that get a hand gun are those that get to choose whatever they want to equip themselves with. That female soldier will likely never shoot a hand gun in her life.

Genin
12-03-2011, 21:26
if you were in that many fights, then you obviously were where you shouldn't have been. Having to worry about getting into an immediate beat down also hints at being someplace where it's probable or likely to happen, and once again you're in a place where you should not be. having to worry about getting beaten down like that suggests that you've pissed a lot of people off and have to actually worry about a spontaneous ass whipping breaking out. once again, a place you should not be. Arming yourself so you can draw an fire in a place you shouldn't be, is a bit akin to looking for trouble so you can deal out more trouble... wait for it... again, a place you should not be. recommending to someone that they carry condition 1 just because they have to worry about getting a surprise beat down, IMO, is like telling them to go look for trouble in, yes you guessed it, a place they should not be.

you shouldn't be looking for trouble, you should be looking to avoid it. using your weapon is a last effort at avoiding that trouble, and attempting to put a stop to it, IF it should find you, not the other way around

Boy you sure aren't good at reading. It's okay. Practice makes perfect. Allow me to enlighten you Lord (funny forum name at least).

Never did I EVER say to go and "look" for trouble, never did I say anything about using a firearm as your first option. Please never put words in my mouth, it only serves to make you look foolish and by your response I will judge you as being such. I was merely pointing out that I used to live in some rough areas and was pretty damn aggressive. I didn't know how to just back away from a fight or not defend a friend that was in need (haven't been in a fight since I was 22 years old). I was trying to enlighten people on the reality of altercations that most people refuse to acknowledge because they have never experienced. We all come from different walks of life and different backgrounds. Sharing that knowledge and experience is what these forums are for. Agreed?

Your member name really is appropriate I guess since you are all knowing and will never be in a place where you need your firearm ever becasue there is no threat....after all you're not in a place....wait for it.....you should not be. I guess you have no need to carry at all with your logic since bad things only happen in designated unsafe zones.

Silly or stupid or both? Wait for it........

unit1069
12-03-2011, 22:18
You decide the risk profile. If you think you will ND due to lack of training, I honestly have little sympathy.

The risk profile of carrying Condition 2 includes the fact that some holsters are pliable and subject to possible pressure on the trigger. Or that an object can become lodged in the holster, whatever the holster design and/or material.

I'm certainly happy to have the video of the highly trained DEA agent bragging to everyone about how he was the only one in the room qualified to handle a Glock firearm. (Until the highly trained DEA agent shot himself in the foot!) It's comforting to know that negligent discharges only happen to those with lack of training.

Landric
12-03-2011, 23:42
...I wonder if Israeli carry (the Victors of the Six Day war and thus warriors) was called French carry - would the argument go away?

I don't mean to be negative, but that';s how I see this endless argument.

Nah, French carry involves throwing a chamber empty handgun on the ground at the feet of one's attacker, screaming "I surrender don't hurt me!", and making a rapid "tactical advance to the rear" while waiving one's arms over one's head.

Glockbuster
12-04-2011, 07:29
Boy you sure aren't good at reading. It's okay. Practice makes perfect. Allow me to enlighten you Lord (funny forum name at least).

Never did I EVER say to go and "look" for trouble, never did I say anything about using a firearm as your first option. Please never put words in my mouth, it only serves to make you look foolish and by your response I will judge you as being such. I was merely pointing out that I used to live in some rough areas and was pretty damn aggressive. I didn't know how to just back away from a fight or not defend a friend that was in need (haven't been in a fight since I was 22 years old). I was trying to enlighten people on the reality of altercations that most people refuse to acknowledge because they have never experienced. We all come from different walks of life and different backgrounds. Sharing that knowledge and experience is what these forums are for. Agreed?

Your member name really is appropriate I guess since you are all knowing and will never be in a place where you need your firearm ever becasue there is no threat....after all you're not in a place....wait for it.....you should not be. I guess you have no need to carry at all with your logic since bad things only happen in designated unsafe zones.

Silly or stupid or both? Wait for it........


I'm guessing the fights you are referring to were the "what are you looking at" type of fight. Good thing you wised up. I might sound chicken which I am not, but I'd rather run away from those whenever in posession of deadly force. As a knowledgeable LEO put it once in this forum typically on those fights, if deadly force is involved, there is no winner. One ends up dead or in the hospital, the other one in jail. I always do my best to avoid escalation of a potential conflict and it is the reason why I don't really see a huge difference between C1 and C3 in such instances.

Glenn E. Meyer
12-04-2011, 09:56
Because a DEA agent was an idiot or someone can't choose a quality holster doesn't negate the disadvantages of an unchambered gun. The studies of NDs in the DC police force indicated that rate went up with a failed training program. So if your level of abiilty is that of the DEA agent - don't carry at all.

Also, you cannot always detect and run away from some critical incidents. What part of this does the situational awareness crowd NOT understand.

With a chambered gun, unchambered gun or no gun - I'm fleeing in terror if I can. However, if I can't then I don't want to do an extra dance to get into action.

Another factor for situational awareness friends, sometimes you may want to put your hand on your gun as you detect a threat. Then you can draw and do into action. You may even want to put it behind your leg. With Israeli carry, you have to hop around and overtly posture to get a gun ready to go.

That might clue the awareness of the opponent.

I said before - do quality FOF in realistic situations in crowds, stores, etc. See how it works for you.

It's not always that the Zombie biker appears on the horizon, announcing his presence so you can flee or do your Israeli dance moves.

The latest NYPD shooting report indicates that most incidents for them are fairly close and shot one handed. Police aren't civilian shootings but it is a reasonable indication of the ecology of criminal vs. good guy gun fights.

If you were in a Virginia Tech classroom and Cho came in (oh, for campus carry) - you want to be dancing around then? You have fractions of a section if you are targeted.

Lord
12-04-2011, 10:52
Boy you sure aren't good at reading. It's okay. Practice makes perfect. Allow me to enlighten you Lord (funny forum name at least).

Never did I EVER say to go and "look" for trouble, never did I say anything about using a firearm as your first option. Please never put words in my mouth, it only serves to make you look foolish and by your response I will judge you as being such. I was merely pointing out that I used to live in some rough areas and was pretty damn aggressive. I didn't know how to just back away from a fight or not defend a friend that was in need (haven't been in a fight since I was 22 years old). I was trying to enlighten people on the reality of altercations that most people refuse to acknowledge because they have never experienced. We all come from different walks of life and different backgrounds. Sharing that knowledge and experience is what these forums are for. Agreed?

Your member name really is appropriate I guess since you are all knowing and will never be in a place where you need your firearm ever becasue there is no threat....after all you're not in a place....wait for it.....you should not be. I guess you have no need to carry at all with your logic since bad things only happen in designated unsafe zones.

Silly or stupid or both? Wait for it........

Thanks for proving my point.

dudel
12-04-2011, 11:02
If you're arming a lot of poorly trained people with all kinds of different weapons, Israeli Carry is a sound policy decision... especially if "Force Protection" means protecting conscripts from shooting each other, and the vast majority of contact comes from indirect fire and IEDs.

I would hardly put the general Israeli population/conscripts into the category of "poorly trained people". I suspect the average israeli is much better trained than the majority of armchair pistoleros you find on GT who like to go on (and on) about how to carry.

Deaf Smith
12-04-2011, 11:06
Glenn,

I agree with you on all that.

Just like the less parts in a gun tend to make the weapon more reliable, the less steps you have to do to defend yourself the better! I never liked karate 'techniques' that took 5 moves to defend themselves against a grab or punch! Just not realistic!

Now just yesterday I was coaching a lady at the gun range (I've had quite a few people just come up to me and ask me to show them how to shoot there, and I don't work there! I think it has something to do with me hip shooting bullseyes and other weird stuff the staff there let me get by with. I shoot free and I shoot often!)

Well she packs a Bersa .380, which is fine with me. Carries it in her purse without any holster (I recommend to her an Uncle Mikes IWB stitched into the purse to keep it on one place and she will do that she said.)

She had it chamber empty AND with the safety on! And with just purse carry and no holster to guard the trigger from getting something inside it to pull the trigger inadvertently well I can kind of understand.

She had a Bersa .22 this time as well (which last time I also recommended that to her, so she listens!) Lot of them don't. She learned to use the de-cocker every time she fires, switch mags, use the FBI method of racking the slide, Jeff Gonzales method of drawing (well that is where I got it along time ago when he was at Rangermasters at the Polite Society), and actually some point shooting as she cannot at all see the sights (yes she must be only 30 years old and very far sighted, can't see the sights at all on my Glock or her Bersa.)

The real problem is alot of CCW carriers are not all that familiar with mechanical things in general and guns in particular. I grew up with them and they are second nature. But for the person who never has touched one, been told how dangerous they are and how you are more likely to shoot yourself or loved ones or the bad guy get your gun or child gets your gun, etc... and so they are kind of scared of them. And hence the ultra conservative mode of carry they use.

Anyway she is slowly getting away from chamber empty after I showed her how hard it is to a) find that loose gun in the purse, b) take the safety off, c) rack the slide, d) and re-acquisition the bad guy before he knifes her while she is sitting in her car! In time her Bersa will be in a stitched holster inside the purse, chamber loaded, an she will have an alternate method of defense (pepper spray or H2H, most likely the pepper spray.)

It all has to do with confidence in ones abilities and sound logic as to what is safe and not safe. And that comes for training. In time she will be well trained and I hope she then decides to pack the gun on her body and not in that purse (but one step at a time!)

Deaf

KalashniKEV
12-04-2011, 13:57
I would hardly put the general Israeli population/conscripts into the category of "poorly trained people". I suspect the average israeli is much better trained than the majority of armchair pistoleros you find on GT who like to go on (and on) about how to carry.

Don't buy into the nonsense.

Have you ever attended any military training with the Israelis?
(Backyard commando drills lead by Freddy Cheeseburger don't count)

It's a conscript army.

http://totallycoolpix.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05112010_female_soldiers/femalesoldiers_19.jpg

They maintain regional dominance because:

1) We prop them up with dollars.
2) We give them better stuff than most countries with domestic industries can afford/ produce.
3) They have concentrated their enemies into camps/reservations and deny them the means to resist.

Soldiering is a professional gig. A real standing army will shred up a conscript force in no time.

PhotoFeller
12-04-2011, 15:53
My dad always said you can always get out of jail, you can't get out of the tomb. Rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

Interesting how folks can read into posts what their biases lead them to see. In my quote jortega uses to make a point favoring Condition 1, I was merely trying to say a person needs to be able to prove proficiency with Condition 1. Absent demonstrable competence with one's chosen carry method, the jury may find we are careless with a deadly weapon. Condition 1 is great if you can demonstrate you've got the training and experience to do it safely in public.

Glenn E. Meyer
12-04-2011, 16:37
Interesting argument. Since I know quite a bit about the jury research - I haven't come across that as an issue. But play it out.

1. If you go to court it is because the shoot is seen as bad by the forces of the law.
2. If the point is made that you acted badly, carrying unchambered is an admission that you are undertrained according to some. While you might argue that carry chambered is dangerous - you are in court because you shot someone. Thus, you did the silly thing with your gun anyway. So what.
3. If your judgement is in question because you shot someone, you may want to testify as SD is an affirmative defense.
4. Thus, you claim you carried unchambered as you are untrained, you don't trust yourself with the gun.
5. Or you claim that you model yourself after the proven Israeli warriors. That might give a nutso shoot'em up world view.

Since, every police force and almost every trainer argues for chambered carry, I don't think arguing you don't trust yourself will go well when your shooting judgement is in doubt.

PhotoFeller
12-04-2011, 17:11
Interesting argument. Since I know quite a bit about the jury research - I haven't come across that as an issue. But play it out.

1. If you go to court it is because the shoot is seen as bad by the forces of the law.
2. If the point is made that you acted badly, carrying unchambered is an admission that you are undertrained according to some. While you might argue that carry chambered is dangerous - you are in court because you shot someone. Thus, you did the silly thing with your gun anyway. So what.
3. If your judgement is in question because you shot someone, you may want to testify as SD is an affirmative defense.
4. Thus, you claim you carried unchambered as you are untrained, you don't trust yourself with the gun.
5. Or you claim that you model yourself after the proven Israeli warriors. That might give a nutso shoot'em up world view.

Since, every police force and almost every trainer argues for chambered carry, I don't think arguing you don't trust yourself will go well when your shooting judgement is in doubt.

Your view isn't off base and a shooting-for-SD case could go in the direction you describe. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't pretend to be an authority on trial outcomes. My opinions are based on my version of common sense and articles by Massad Ayoob about trials he has testified in or has knowledge about.

I'm suggesting a jury might be persuaded that a SD defendant didn't have sufficIent training and experience to carry HP ammo in Condition 1 to meet a test of reasonable competence for the public safety.

As a Condition 3 SD defendant who carries 9mm ball ammo, my defense would be that my philosophy is to use deadly force only as a last resort and concern for public safety outweighs my desire to mitigate an attack at all costs.

This debate can't be resolved here with differing, but valid, points of view. Each individual has to decide what is most important, based on their view of the world, and trust that their judgement will pass the critical jury test.

Landric
12-04-2011, 22:16
Your view isn't off base and a shooting-for-SD case could go in the direction you describe. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't pretend to be an authority on trial outcomes. My opinions are based on my version of common sense and articles by Massad Ayoob about trials he has testified in or has knowledge about.

I'm suggesting a jury might be persuaded that a SD defendant didn't have sufficIent training and experience to carry HP ammo in Condition 1 to meet a test of reasonable competence for the public safety.

As a Condition 3 SD defendant who carries 9mm ball ammo, my defense would be that my philosophy is to use deadly force only as a last resort and concern for public safety outweighs my desire to mitigate an attack at all costs.

This debate can't be resolved here with differing, but valid, points of view. Each individual has to decide what is most important, based on their view of the world, and trust that their judgement will pass the critical jury test.

Interesting, I've never seen Mas advocate carrying a handgun with an empty chamber. I suspect that he would also be of the opinion that those who are not comfortable carrying a fully loaded handgun really shouldn't be carrying at all. I don't agree with everything he has to say, but no question he is a fan of speaking his mind.

At any rate, I can't think of any circumstance where how a handgun was carried (chamber loaded vs. chamber empty) would be a issue at all in the event of a trial. Obviously a round got into the chamber somehow and was discharged. When it got there is not material unless one is trying to claim the discharge was a ND rather than intentional.

I've always wondered if the same people who are not comfortable carrying a pistol with a round in the chamber carry a revolver with an empty chamber to the left or right of the chamber under the hammer (depending on which way the cylinder rotates). While there may be some folks who are not comfortable carrying a cocked and locked handgun (and I understand that), there is no practical difference between carrying a DA, DAO, or striker-fired pistol fully loaded or a revolver with a fully loaded cylinder.

There might be some special circumstances where carrying with an empty chamber makes sense, but under most circumstances it doesn't make any sense. Handguns, being defensive tools, need to be ready to go. One cannot always count on having two hands to get a pistol into action.

Glenn E. Meyer
12-05-2011, 09:12
Knowing Mas' story pretty well - I never heard him or read about him making such an argument.

Also, the idea of carrying Condition 3 with ball as a measure of only using lethal force as a last resort and public safety would again work up against you.

The reasons for HP ammo are two fold:

1. First, it doesn't over penetrate. Mas has detailed police overpenetration issues and would testify for you that HP was a measure of public safety.

2. You don't choose ammo to be less lethal. Any gunshot is potentially lethal. Now in the controversial Fish case ammo seemed to play a role. But that case is complex. Other ancedotal evidence suggests that ammo types can be brought up and that's the reason for using standard ammo that can be shown be used by the law.

Of course, it is opinion but clearly simulation work and some real world incidents suggest that in close SD or injury, condition 3 is a handicap. The ball issue is not that important. Since we do know of overpenetration incidents, that would seem more compelling.

Since you are on trial for a bad shoot, claiming that despite your concerns - carrying ball and condition - and you did it for being ill-trained - you still shot someone - you probably don't look like a competent shooter.

Yep, you may get some antigunner all hot and bothered but you'd better have a lawyer who during voir dire and presentation of facts really knows his or her gun stuff. Any you need to get experts to testify for you. That's a better legal defense plan that some cockamamie gun setup that is not that optimal if you do get into a critical incident.

series1811
12-05-2011, 09:33
I'm guessing the fights you are referring to were the "what are you looking at" type of fight. Good thing you wised up. I might sound chicken which I am not, but I'd rather run away from those whenever in posession of deadly force. As a knowledgeable LEO put it once in this forum typically on those fights, if deadly force is involved, there is no winner. One ends up dead or in the hospital, the other one in jail. I always do my best to avoid escalation of a potential conflict and it is the reason why I don't really see a huge difference between C1 and C3 in such instances.

A friend of mine went to a call where he had a biker who got beat up pretty good at a bar by a couple of guys. As he is talking to him, he tells my friend that he is carrying a pistol and has a permit. My friend says, "Why would you let two guys beat you up so bad if you had a pistol?"

He said the biker grinned and said, "Because, I started it." :supergrin:

Deaf Smith
12-05-2011, 17:05
Glenn,

One of my understandings of Mas' arguments is that with FMJ you may very well be forced to shoot the attacker multiple times to get a stop, and thus FMJ may be more likely to kill them than a JHP were you many just need one or two hits. He gave several reasons why FMJ was a bad pick.

Deaf

twisty
12-05-2011, 18:11
I am wondering about opinions on this method. I would like to hear from people who have had "real world" experience, like cops or someone who has had to draw due to extreme circumstances. What was the timing like. Do you think it made a difference that the firearm was ready to go immediately. It is my own opinion that training to rack the slide while drawing is just as good as keeping it ready to fire all the time, with possible life saving benefits of avoiding ND by yourself or others, but I have zero experience in a situation.



[Moderator Note and Warning - Folks, before you post, read all the other posts in this thread, all of them. This is not another "beating a dead horse" thread.

If you choose to not read the thread, not make a positive contribution to the discussion, and you just post the dead horse emoticon, you'll receive an infraction for trolling.]

In my professional opinion -whatever that may or may not be worth- the time it takes to draw and rack the slide to charge the weapon is the time it takes for your adversary to shoot you. The only benefit to carrying without a round in the chamber would be to add a level of safety that may or may not be necessary. I believe that carrying a sidearm without a round in the chamber could only have a legitimate argument if your primary weapon was a long gun (rifle/shot gun) and the side arm was a last ditch attempt at saving your life or getting to cover, then you might have the time to spare to chamber a round before shooting. Duty carry for my issued sidearm is a full magazine with one in the chamber because that is my primary weapon most of the time. If I have to draw, aim, and fire accurately I need to do it as fast as possible. The extra movement of charging the weapon is too time consuming in my opinion and experience. Too each his/her own, I believe it is too time consuming and unnecessary. Thank you for your time.

PhotoFeller
12-06-2011, 08:05
In my professional opinion -whatever that may or may not be worth- the time it takes to draw and rack the slide to charge the weapon is the time it takes for your adversary to shoot you. The only benefit to carrying without a round in the chamber would be to add a level of safety that may or may not be necessary. I believe that carrying a sidearm without a round in the chamber could only have a legitimate argument if your primary weapon was a long gun (rifle/shot gun) and the side arm was a last ditch attempt at saving your life or getting to cover, then you might have the time to spare to chamber a round before shooting. Duty carry for my issued sidearm is a full magazine with one in the chamber because that is my primary weapon most of the time. If I have to draw, aim, and fire accurately I need to do it as fast as possible. The extra movement of charging the weapon is too time consuming in my opinion and experience. Too each his/her own, I believe it is too time consuming and unnecessary. Thank you for your time.

As someone who carries #3, thanks for posting your position in favor of #1 in a non-abrasive way.

Seems like it all boils down to (1) time to respond and (2) being able to operate with one hand.

Like the OP says, it would be great to hear from more people with real experience. In real life encounters, how much time did you have to present your gun and did you need to operate with only one hand? Testimonials are so much more meaningful than theoretical opinions. Furthermore, isn't this a pure academic exercise (fun but meaningless) without facts established by individual testimony or credible case studies?

This OP is unique because it asks for statements from people who have real street experience. If these folks don't want to speak, or if GTalk is populated only by theorists, we'll never get past the rhetoric.

Bren
12-06-2011, 08:18
My dad always said you can always get out of jail, you can't get out of the tomb.

Then your dad is wrong. Even a child should be aware that you don't "always" get out of jail and most of those who don't are there for killing somebody without legal justification. The best bet is to learn the law - much more important than learning to shoot.

As for the original topic, I have had to draw, but, more importantly, in my job I have spent a lot of time reviewing real police shootings, talking to the people involved, watching videos of them, etc. My conclusion is that the key to winning a BIG majority of gunfights is 1 thing - speed. The speed and distance involved shows that in most cases the guy who can get his gun out, in one hand and roughly pointed at his target and jerk the trigger first will win. Sights, grip, trigger control, technique, capacity, etc., mean nothing in most defensive shootings. Just speed.

If you think about it for a minute - do criminals give you warning when they are 20 yards away? Nope, if they can't get close enough, they go on to the next victim. That means the most likely threat is going to be close and fast while your gun is holstered. If you think chambering a round is not a problem, that's your problem, so go for it.

Glenn E. Meyer
12-06-2011, 08:42
What is evidence?

1. The 'real world' - well, the NYPD latest report indicates half their recent shootings were one handed. Skip and John at the NTI sessions say their studies indicate one handed is common in the real world. Both are in the business and studied lots of cases.

2. Scientists do simulations. We have two sources:

a. Matches
b. FOF

Both indicate speed differences and scenarios where two handed, unchambered are a disadvantage.

Thus, standard scientific methods indicate that Israeli carry has problems in the police and civilian world in the USA.

Choose what you want. But the evidence is clear. Saying this is just academic because you have taken a position and don't want to budge is your business. You accept the risk profile based on your opinion and abilities.

tuica
12-06-2011, 12:40
I would never want to add one more additional (perhaps situationally difficult) activity to an already stressful encounter. Cheers.

Lord
12-06-2011, 13:05
This OP is unique because it asks for statements from people who have real street experience. If these folks don't want to speak, or if GTalk is populated only by theorists, we'll never get past the rhetoric.

Well said. In my one and hopefully last situation where I was forced to draw, I did not have to shoot... however I had ample time and distance from bg to rack one if I had to. Fortunately, displaying my weapon caused enough apprehension to send bg on his way with his tail between his legs. If bg was more aggressive than he already was, then no, I would not have had the chance to rack one. It boils down to the circumstance, and once again, how trained and practiced one is relevant to the method of carry, but if you ad to it the possibility that you get jumped or what have you, you may be able to draw, but racking would be out of the question. For this reason, I switched from unchambered to chambered.

Bren
12-06-2011, 13:47
2. Scientists do simulations. We have two sources:

a. Matches
b. FOF

Both indicate speed differences and scenarios where two handed, unchambered are a disadvantage.


Which gives me a great idea:

If you believe carrying with an empty chamber is just as good as carrying with one in the chamber go find a local IDPA/USPSA/GSSF/etc. match and shoot it by chambering after you draw. See how you do. When you are beat by every elderly farmer and soccer mom at the match, reevaluate your belief.

That way, you don't need to rely on what anybody says. They will give you the written outcome, with speed and accuracy documented and you can compare yourself to other shooters. That doesn't leave much room for doubt.

PhotoFeller
12-06-2011, 17:03
Which gives me a great idea:

If you believe carrying with an empty chamber is just as good as carrying with one in the chamber go find a local IDPA/USPSA/GSSF/etc. match and shoot it by chambering after you draw. See how you do. When you are beat by every elderly farmer and soccer mom at the match, reevaluate your belief.

That way, you don't need to rely on what anybody says. They will give you the written outcome, with speed and accuracy documented and you can compare yourself to other shooters. That doesn't leave much room for doubt.

I can't disagree that #1 is faster in most situations. The exception, in my view, would involve highly skilled practitioners in Israeli draw; some I've seen are lightening fast. The opportunity for screwing up the chambering step is also obvious with #3.

What remains to be 'proven' is how often the split second advantage is necessary. Also open is the question of how probable the need is for one-hand draw. It is probably fair to say that the optimum method of carry is #1, all things considered. That is a theoretical conclusion, however, since there doesn't seem to be empirical evidence from GTalkers to make a compelling case for #1. For those who believe optimum speed with one hand is essential for survival in the real world, #1 is the way to go. Case closed?

rygleason
12-06-2011, 21:28
We can have this same old discussion over and over. The most significant problem I see with Israeli is it takes two hands. I can imagine hundreds of scenarios where you need one hand for the draw and the other hand for, well, hundreds of things.

Agreed. Carrying unchambered you are assuming that you will have both hands available to rack the slide on your draw.

I also agree with the argument about carrying unchambered around children if you are playing/rough housing . Unfortunately, you never know if/when you will need to draw on a BG.......




Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Bren
12-07-2011, 05:00
I can't disagree that #1 is faster in most situations. The exception, in my view, would involve highly skilled practitioners in Israeli draw; some I've seen are lightening fast. The opportunity for screwing up the chambering step is also obvious with #3.

What remains to be 'proven' is how often the split second advantage is necessary. Also open is the question of how probable the need is for one-hand draw. It is probably fair to say that the optimum method of carry is #1, all things considered. That is a theoretical conclusion, however, since there doesn't seem to be empirical evidence from GTalkers to make a compelling case for #1. For those who believe optimum speed with one hand is essential for survival in the real world, #1 is the way to go. Case closed?

I think a chambered round is the obvious winner - a guy who can draw and chamber a round "lightening fast" can, obviously, draw without chambere=ing a round even faster. As for which is best, I encourage everyone to do as they please - the onld saying is, "maybe your purpose in life is to serve as a bad example for others." We can read about them in the paper if they ever need to use their guns.

Glenn E. Meyer
12-07-2011, 09:32
Empirically, I have just returned from phys. therapy for treating my hand that I messed up in knife class.

As with my past broken wrist adventures with only having one usable hand for a bit - I regard the unchambered carry arguments based on Spider sense situational awareness as silly.

Said it before - will convince no one.

Deaf Smith
12-07-2011, 17:05
And I have broke my strong side hand in the martial arts before. Hence one learns to shoot one handed, and EITHER hand, and why C3 is only good for special cases.

Deaf

Jake Starr
12-07-2011, 17:11
It is my own opinion that training to rack the slide while drawing is just as good as keeping it ready to fire all the time, with possible life saving benefits of avoiding ND by yourself or others, but I have zero experience in a situation.



You are corret. It is just as good and many times even better.

For real world experience, for civilian and LEO, the Israeli Method is just as good and even better than having one in the pipe. I am an civlian CCDW carry and Instructor. I am also a Sheriff's deputy and an FBI Police Firearms Instructor...C3 carry IS NOT the same as the Israeli Method. There is a differnce. I you wish to know more...send me a PM.

PEC-Memphis
12-07-2011, 18:30
Which gives me a great idea:

If you believe carrying with an empty chamber is just as good as carrying with one in the chamber go find a local IDPA/USPSA/GSSF/etc. match and shoot it by chambering after you draw. See how you do. When you are beat by every elderly farmer and soccer mom at the match, reevaluate your belief.

That way, you don't need to rely on what anybody says. They will give you the written outcome, with speed and accuracy documented and you can compare yourself to other shooters. That doesn't leave much room for doubt.

I've already done it - beat several people - no farmers or soccer moms. One was a LEO among others.

Bren
12-08-2011, 04:29
I've already done it - beat several people - no farmers or soccer moms. One was a LEO among others.

Well then, as long as nobody beat you, you're all set. :rofl:

Jake Starr
12-08-2011, 05:11
Condition 3 is an outdated and unsafe way to carry or handle any firearm you personally use for self defense. If you cant follow the basic rules of firearms safety, don't carry a handgun.....

Most ND situations I have dealt with involve; guess what; someone who carries or handles handguns in contition 3 and thinks the gun is unloaded...


I am not sure where you get this idea but Israeli Carry is neither outdated nor unsafe.

As per following the basic safety rules I agree. But as you should know, if this was the bar to be set, there would be many LEOs who would have to become firefighters instead.

And this would include the late Jim Cirillo.

Glockbuster
12-08-2011, 07:55
You are corret. It is just as good and many times even better.

For real world experience, for civilian and LEO, the Israeli Method is just as good and even better than having one in the pipe. I am an civlian CCDW carry and Instructor. I am also a Sheriff's deputy and an FBI Police Firearms Instructor...C3 carry IS NOT the same as the Israeli Method. There is a differnce. I you wish to know more...send me a PM.

I think a chambered round is the obvious winner - a guy who can draw and chamber a round "lightening fast" can, obviously, draw without chambere=ing a round even faster. As for which is best, I encourage everyone to do as they please - the onld saying is, "maybe your purpose in life is to serve as a bad example for others." We can read about them in the paper if they ever need to use their guns.

The obvious winner by a fraction of a second. Also, it is important to keep the record straight. Many posters have referred to "racking the slide while you draw", it is actually racking the slide in one smooth motion while presenting the gun, after it is drawn. You have to present the weapon after you draw regardless of C1 or C3. I know a few people who are surprisingly fast in doing this trick (much faster than most with the gun in C1). It is there that I debunk those who say that if you feel the need to carry in C3 "you need to get more training".

That is why Jake Starr states that C3 is in many instances "better". It might not mean faster, but better in the sense of the huge safety benefits derived from such a carry method, as well as administrative handling.

PEC-Memphis
12-08-2011, 09:14
Which gives me a great idea:

If you believe carrying with an empty chamber is just as good as carrying with one in the chamber go find a local IDPA/USPSA/GSSF/etc. match and shoot it by chambering after you draw. See how you do. When you are beat by every elderly farmer and soccer mom at the match, reevaluate your belief.

That way, you don't need to rely on what anybody says. They will give you the written outcome, with speed and accuracy documented and you can compare yourself to other shooters. That doesn't leave much room for doubt.

I've already done it - beat several people - no farmers or soccer moms. One was a LEO among others.


Well then, as long as nobody beat you, you're all set. :rofl:

Well at least for that group of people, on that particular CoF, on that particular run.

I don't know why you think it is :rofl:. You simply had an idea that has already been done. Different people have different skill levels - people with higher skill levels can accept more handicaps (compared to lower skill levels) and still win.

Compare it to: One hand only is always slower/less accurate than two-handed; but I'll wager there are plenty of folks you've shot against that you could have shot strong-hand only and still won against them shooting free-style.

On average (for this group of IDPA) MA/EX/SS shooters took <0.25s longer on the CoF to rack the slide during presentation compared to not having to rack the slide. This was still >1s faster than the MM/NV/UK group when they didn't rack the slide.

I'm not going to beat Jerry, Dave, Julie, Jessie, Brian, or Todd by having them "spot me" an empty chamber.

Does it almost always take longer ? Yes.
Does it introduce more chance of error ? Yes
Would it take much, much longer with only one hand? Yes.
Is the stress of an actual shooting greater than of competition? Yes.
Will it take a shooter of high proficiency to the level of a stereotypical soccer mom? No.

SCmasterblaster
12-11-2011, 17:48
Looks like a refresher on Carry Conditions is in order (after reading Lord's post)

Carry Conditions (as created/defined by Col. Jeff Cooper):

Condition Zero: Round chambered, full magazine, hammer/striker cocked, safety off.

Condition One: Round chambered, full magazine, hammer/striker cocked, safety on.

Condition Two: Round chambered, full magazine, hammer/striker down.

Condition Three: Chamber empty, full magazine, hammer/striker down.

Condition Four: Chamber empty, no magazine, hammer/striker down.


I'd like to offer a Condition One and a half - round chambered, full magazine, hammer/striker cocked, Otapin inserted into Glock ejection port. slide held back 6mm, trigger and striker inert.

Deaf Smith
12-11-2011, 21:18
Well gang, I'll pack C3 the day I master the Ninja Reload.

Barring that, if ever I fell uncomfortable with my Glock C1, I guess it will be time to start packing revolvers. After all, they are C1 all the time right? And no one beefs about that.

Deaf

Bren
12-12-2011, 04:34
Well at least for that group of people, on that particular CoF, on that particular run.

I don't know why you think it is :rofl:. You simply had an idea that has already been done. Different people have different skill levels - people with higher skill levels can accept more handicaps (compared to lower skill levels) and still win.


No, you aren't thinking very hard before you post. Even a shooter who is faster than me with the Israeli method is slower than HE would be with a chambered round. I have never met a shooter even remotely close to being that fast, so it's like advocating shooting blindfolded because there's a trick-shot artist who can do it, but feel free to give bad advice.


Compare it to: One hand only is always slower/less accurate than two-handed; but I'll wager there are plenty of folks you've shot against that you could have shot strong-hand only and still won against them shooting free-style.


Well on the range we see that one handed shooting is useful because, pretty obviously, it's faster than 2, even for beginers (yes, I've taught beginners to do it, with ease). It's also really easy to be accurate close up with one hand and no sights, that's why the police still learn to shoot that way and that's why I do it in competition when it's a close enough target to work.

English
12-12-2011, 05:44
How friggin ironic. I got all the "my way is the best way because--"stuff and a guy named beatcop thinks we"re beating a dead horse. STILL not a single reference to a real situation that actually happened. I AM ASKING FOR REAL EXPERIENCES. I don't care that you think you need your other hand for something else at all times. There are plenty of "experts" that will tell you that you will be killed with your own firearm in short order with this type of mindset. I am more convinced now than ever that if you don't have time to rack the firearm, then you don't have time to use it at all.

It sounds as though you are asking a sensible question, but it isn't so. The simple fact is that on some occasions Israeli carry will save a bullet wound for the carrier or some other innocent, but in other circumstances carrying with one in the chamber will save his life or the lives of others. So all that remains is probability and statistics, and any answers you might get on Glock Talk will not provide a statistical base worth having. All you are left with is weighing up the arguments on both sides and making a choice.

English

Clay1
12-13-2011, 06:18
While I DIDN'T read all of the posts in this long thread I wanted to comment that Israeli carry is meant for military or police in that country and not usually a solo man. I like to quote Jeff Cooper by saying that the reason for a handgun is to stop something that someone else starts and it is almost always at extremely close range. If someone has you on the ground all wrapped up, how are you going to rack that thing in a time prudent manner.

I think that some invision a gun fight as happening at 30 paces and I believe that one not in the chamber might be OK here. I also believe that more real exchanges take place at bad breath distances where you might not be able to rack the slide.

Good luck making up your own mind on this issue. Practice whatever you decide upon.

Jake Starr
12-13-2011, 06:37
Okay, this was given to me by a IDF Commando/Instructor. He submitted this to IALEFI. His contention is that LEO in this country receive very little training compared to what they should have. Here is part of his reasoning.

NYPD STATS

Statistics: nobody likes them, but they are necessary and they do have their place. We can analyze statistical data to make inferences and to help in the decision making process. In this case the numbers, which never lie, are necessary for exposing and revealing one of the biggest but least talked about issues plaguing law enforcement today: The accidental firing of one’s weapon, the negligent discharge.

Lets take a look at the NYPD firearms discharge report for the year 2004 (as published by WCBS). In that year police engaged in 11 gunfights (exchange of fire between officers and subjects). In those 11 gun fights, there were 92 shots fired by police officers and 18 of the 92 were hits, that’s 20% accuracy. In the same year there were 27 accidental discharges of an officer’s duty firearm. Of those 27 accidental discharges, 28 shots were fired and 13 were hits. 13 of 28 or 46% of shots fired hit the officer or bystander.

In the year 2005 there were 16 gun fights and 24 accidental discharges of firearms. In those 16 gun fights 35 officers fired. The officers fired a total of 276 rounds hitting their target only 23 times. That is a dismal 8% accuracy rate. The average was 17 shots fired per incident and 8 per officer. In 2005 25 accidental shots were fired by 24 NYPD police officers hitting 10 times, with an unfortunate accuracy rating of 42 percent.

Unfortunately the police are much more likely to shoot themselves or a bystander then they are to engage a criminal in an actual gunfight. This statistical conclusion is not a matter of opinion or meant to do anything else but state the obvious; if one is more likely to shoot oneself or another accidentally (more then twice as likely in 2004), then one should not have a gun. Those officers pose a greater threat to society and themselves than the criminals. These are the NYPD’s statistics as reported. It is unfortunate, but we can learn from this. The answer is not to disarm the police like in the UK, no, the answer is not to fire anybody or punish and embarrass the department. The answer is to slightly transform our training and culture within US law enforcement.

The NYPD is supposed to be a prestigious elite organization that other police and security agencies can look up to worldwide. But looking at the statistics of other units around the world who have equal to and more gunfights per year (Israel for example) you will see they have far fewer accidental shooting incidents. This is due to the fact that in other countries outside the US, like Russia and other EU countries, a bullet is not carried in the chamber.

Source:

http://www.nyclu.org/files/nypd_firearms_report_102207.pdf

cowboy1964
12-13-2011, 07:09
The New York PD has some smart people (not to mention the anti-gun politicians in the city). You'd think if chamber-empty was such a great idea they would have figured it out by now.

cowboy1964
12-13-2011, 07:11
Okay, this was given to me by a IDF Commando/Instructor. He submitted this to IALEFI. His contention is that LEO in this country receive very little training compared to what they should have. Here is part of his reasoning.

Cute how they only counted "gunfights" and not "other shootings vs subjects". Nothing like cherry picking data to try to make a point.

whitebread
12-13-2011, 07:15
cute how they only counted "gunfights" and not "other shootings vs subjects". Nothing like cherry picking data to try to make a point.

qft!!!

Glockbuster
12-13-2011, 08:45
Folks, you cannot ignore the unfavorable and disproportionate number of accidental discharge hits vs the number of gunfights in Jake´s post.

I would also like to know, but never will know, how C3 carry would have changed the outcome of things in those gunfights.

At the very least one cannot say C3 is for idiots or incompetent users. Even if it is, they do exist and most likely without self knowledge.

Deaf Smith
12-13-2011, 19:44
Folks, you cannot ignore the unfavorable and disproportionate number of accidental discharge hits vs the number of gunfights in Jake´s post.

I would also like to know, but never will know, how C3 carry would have changed the outcome of things in those gunfights.

At the very least one cannot say C3 is for idiots or incompetent users. Even if it is, they do exist and most likely without self knowledge.

What we also don't know is how many of the AD/NDs were because the person THOUGHT the gun was 'unloaded', or just C3, and they FORGOT they had chambered a round (or someone else chambered a round.)

More people are killed by 'unloaded' guns than by guns they KNEW were loaded.

Deaf

Tommy Hanrahan
12-13-2011, 22:18
Israeli carry requires an extra operation in the process of drawing and firing.
An extra step is an added chance for something to go wrong.
Why create an oppurtunituty for disaster?
Yes, I understand you are practiced and confident, however minimizing the steps in any operation reduces the odds for a mishap.

PEC-Memphis
12-15-2011, 12:28
No, you aren't thinking very hard before you post. Even a shooter who is faster than me with the Israeli method is slower than HE would be with a chambered round. I have never met a shooter even remotely close to being that fast, so it's like advocating shooting blindfolded because there's a trick-shot artist who can do it, but feel free to give bad advice.



Well on the range we see that one handed shooting is useful because, pretty obviously, it's faster than 2, even for beginers (yes, I've taught beginners to do it, with ease). It's also really easy to be accurate close up with one hand and no sights, that's why the police still learn to shoot that way and that's why I do it in competition when it's a close enough target to work.

Your claim is starting without a round in the chamber is going to make a (competent) shooter a loser at IDPA competing against a stereotypical "farmer" or "soccer mom". My statement is that this is not universally true - really not even remotely true. Being a competent shooter is not a "trick" - the blindfolded comment is just nonsense.

I don't know what "advice" you are referring to - I never gave any advice. I just gave the factual results of an experiment conducted with a group of IDPA shooters.

I acknowledged that, on average, groups of similar skill levels were slower clambering a round during the presentation - on average - for the IDPA MA/EX/SS group - it was 0.19s (raw time). You can argue all you want about not having seen a shooter "even remotely close to being that fast" - but I was there with the timer and compiled the data. You are not thinking very hard about arguing with the data from an actual experiment based upon what you think the outcome should be.

In my comparison - I assumed that you would get my point rather than trying to pick it apart. So we will just go with: at your skill level you could accept a handicap, that others of lesser skill level wouldn't have, and you could (would ?) still win because of your greater skill level.

English
12-15-2011, 16:40
Your claim is starting without a round in the chamber is going to make a (competent) shooter a loser at IDPA competing against a stereotypical "farmer" or "soccer mom". My statement is that this is not universally true - really not even remotely true. Being a competent shooter is not a "trick" - the blindfolded comment is just nonsense.

I acknowledged that, on average, groups of similar skill levels were slower clambering a round during the presentation - on average - for the IDPA MA/EX/SS group - it was 0.19s (raw time). You can argue all you want about not having seen a shooter "even remotely close to being that fast" - but I was there with the timer and compiled the data. You are not thinking very hard about arguing with the data from an actual experiment based upon what you think the outcome should be.

In my comparison - I assumed that you would get my point rather than trying to pick it apart. So we will just go with: at your skill level you could accept a handicap that others of lesser skill level wouldn't have and you could still win because of your greater skill level.

That 0.19 seconds is a reasonable split time. In other words your shooters using the Israeli method could be shot once or twice by someone of about the same skill level before they get off their first shot. That is a very good argument for not using the method.

A competent point shooter can draw to the threat. That is, with a threat at 3 O'clock the pistol moves to 3 O'clock as soon as it is out of the holster and is fired without turning the body or moving the feet. The Israeli method works only with a presentation more or less to the front and that is another reason not to use it.

In opposition to that is the undeniable fact that many people are shot with negligent discharges. As Deaf Smith says, many of those thought the gun was not loaded and would have been more careful if they had known it was loaded. The statistics of the NYPD hit rate in actual fights does seem poor and if it really is poor in comparisson to other PDs it suggests that the general level of firearms competence is equally poor. This might indicate that the NYPD should be using the Israeli method, or it might indicate that the NYPD should invest in more and better training, or it might indicate that some LEOs in the NYPD should not be carrying guns at all. It does not show anything worth acting on in itself.

The simple fact is that is usually a combination of two, three or more mental errors that lead to a negligent discharge. Unless we can analyse and enumerate those possibilities and then gather statistics for them we cannot know whether the Israeli method would make a significant difference. Unless we know how many discharges happen using the Israeli method when the user knew the pistol was unloaded we won't know how dangerous the Israeli method is. The assumption that the Israeli method is safer is no more valid than the idea that a thumb safety makes a 1911 safer than a Glock.

This might sound as though I am totally against the Israeli method and I am not. What I am saying is that we cannot know with the data we have.

English

SpringerTGO
12-15-2011, 17:09
Just to add one more variable to the mix.
How often, say walking to your car at night, do you want to have a hand on your weapon, but not draw it, or draw attention to it. Say there are 3 guys standing 3' from your car. Maybe at a restaurant parking lot, or leaving a movie at night, and your car is in an underground lot.

As to the military teaching condition 3, that's a whole different subject. Anyone who has taught any government type classes knows that they are dumbed down as much as possible.
No doubt, the military is dealing with lots of people, with little or no firearms experience, and little or no interest in firearms. For training these types of people (en mass), not letting them chamber a round until they are ordered to, makes sense.

I've got nothing against people carrying condition 3. Carry how you are most comfortable, and carry how you TRAIN.

Glockbuster
12-15-2011, 17:51
That 0.19 seconds is a reasonable split time. In other words your shooters using the Israeli method could be shot once or twice by someone of about the same skill level before they get off their first shot. That is a very good argument for not using the method.


English

How do you plan to compensate for the lead your attacker already has on you ? I can tell you here most often it involves some other maneuver other than drawing your weapon, then you can think of defending yourself. you first have to take the initiative out of your opponent. The time advantage that you concede to C1 over C3 is meaningless. I can justify other reasons such as two hands or other but not time.

unit1069
12-15-2011, 19:28
Just to add one more variable to the mix.
How often, say walking to your car at night, do you want to have a hand on your weapon, but not draw it, or draw attention to it. Say there are 3 guys standing 3' from your car. Maybe at a restaurant parking lot, or leaving a movie at night, and your car is in an underground lot.

As one who currently carries Condition 3, faced with the situation you describe I'll be carrying "hot" before I even get to the theatre, thinking ahead of the environment I'll face when leaving. Carrying whatever condition is not a static situation and I can't count the times I've chambered a round going into an unknown, unfamiliar situation then unchambering it once I'm back into my normal routine.

PEC-Memphis
12-15-2011, 21:28
That 0.19 seconds is a reasonable split time. In other words your shooters using the Israeli method could be shot once or twice by someone of about the same skill level before they get off their first shot. That is a very good argument for not using the method.

A competent point shooter can draw to the threat. That is, with a threat at 3 O'clock the pistol moves to 3 O'clock as soon as it is out of the holster and is fired without turning the body or moving the feet. The Israeli method works only with a presentation more or less to the front and that is another reason not to use it.

In opposition to that is the undeniable fact that many people are shot with negligent discharges. As Deaf Smith says, many of those thought the gun was not loaded and would have been more careful if they had known it was loaded. The statistics of the NYPD hit rate in actual fights does seem poor and if it really is poor in comparisson to other PDs it suggests that the general level of firearms competence is equally poor. This might indicate that the NYPD should be using the Israeli method, or it might indicate that the NYPD should invest in more and better training, or it might indicate that some LEOs in the NYPD should not be carrying guns at all. It does not show anything worth acting on in itself.

The simple fact is that is usually a combination of two, three or more mental errors that lead to a negligent discharge. Unless we can analyse and enumerate those possibilities and then gather statistics for them we cannot know whether the Israeli method would make a significant difference. Unless we know how many discharges happen using the Israeli method when the user knew the pistol was unloaded we won't know how dangerous the Israeli method is. The assumption that the Israeli method is safer is no more valid than the idea that a thumb safety makes a 1911 safer than a Glock.

This might sound as though I am totally against the Israeli method and I am not. What I am saying is that we cannot know with the data we have.

English

You make good points. I never made any applicability claims to actual self defense regarding this experiment; only that an unchambered start isn't going to make a good IDPA / USPSA shooter loose to a novice (ie. the stereotypical "farmer" or "soccer mom").

We shot a local club match last night. I haven't shot for about three (3) months. I got sloppy on a CoF - missed a head shot which cost me 1st place. There were six (6) CoFs. If my unchambered presentation cost 0.2s per draw - my time would have been +1.2s for the match - less than 1/2 of the penalty for a missed head shot.

A 0.19s split is a good split time for a 2nd shot on the same (relatively close) target - not from beep to draw. In a SD situation could 0.19s make a difference in "winning or losing" - sure - but there are a bunch of places where this much - or more - time could be gained (or lost) in a SD situation.

Personally, I don't carry unchambered for a number of reasons; but those who think a pistol without a cartridge in the chamber with a loaded magazine is just a club are just plain ignorant.

samurairabbi
12-15-2011, 21:40
Israeli (condition 3) carry is an answer to a different threat than Americans are usually confronting.

The principal FIREARM threat the Israeli's were up against in the 80's and 90's was an insurgent pulling out an AK in a public setting and hosing down the surrounding crowd. A handgun packing Israeli would probably be a distance (say, 20-30 yards) from the shooter, and would have a decent chance of not being hit in the initial burst. That Israeli would have that extra few moments to charge the chamber of his weapon. He would also have reduced the chance of a negligent discharge at other times, because of his empty chamber.

The standard American threat is a close-up attack on him as an INDIVIDUAL; that extra time to charge the gun is less likely to be available in the face of such a threat.

Choosing your principal threat shapes your choice of carry type.

Steve50
12-16-2011, 02:57
Israeli (condition 3) carry is an answer to a different threat than Americans are usually confronting.

The principal FIREARM threat the Israeli's were up against in the 80's and 90's was an insurgent pulling out an AK in a public setting and hosing down the surrounding crowd. A handgun packing Israeli would probably be a distance (say, 20-30 yards) from the shooter, and would have a decent chance of not being hit in the initial burst. That Israeli would have that extra few moments to charge the chamber of his weapon. He would also have reduced the chance of a negligent discharge at other times, because of his empty chamber.

The standard American threat is a close-up attack on him as an INDIVIDUAL; that extra time to charge the gun is less likely to be available in the face of such a threat.

Choosing your principal threat shapes your choice of carry type.

Always nice to be able to choose your threat...

English
12-16-2011, 04:49
How do you plan to compensate for the lead your attacker already has on you ? I can tell you here most often it involves some other maneuver other than drawing your weapon, then you can think of defending yourself. you first have to take the initiative out of your opponent. The time advantage that you concede to C1 over C3 is meaningless. I can justify other reasons such as two hands or other but not time.

I entirely agree with the need for some evasive or disruptive maneuover but that is very likely to involve getting off the X at high acceleration towards the BG and some 45 degrees left or right. You then gain a little time but only a little. In that time you have to make a hit and the only way to do that is one handed point shooting. If you break to your right, the presentation towards the target is at least in a direction that allows you to rack your pistol as part of the same movement. It takes some time but is not too bad. If you break to your left, you need to present initially to your front in order to rack the pistol and then change the direction of the pistol completely to fire to your right or right rear. telative to drawing in the direction you will be firing, this takes a lot more time and that extra time gives the BG the chance to catch up and hit you first. This difference between moving left and right puts you in a predetermined bias towards moving to the right and that might be blocked in some way.

I am sure from your post that you will understand that as you run evasively your body has to face your direction of motion, but for those that do not understand or have not practiced getting off the X it is worth stating. The result is that you have freedom of directional movement only for your arms and head. It is not possible or desirable to use two hands or the sights.

I believe this is enough of a difference in this particular situation to be an advantage to chambered carry rather than unchambered carry but other situations will have different ballances and how that all weighs out with the risk of NGs is an unknown. Unfortunately I believe we need, as individuals, to make the choice one way or the other because changing method to suit the circumstances of the day or minute is likely to lead to dangerously misappropriate actions under stress.

I think it is also worth stating that the Israeli carry method is a historic carry over. When Israel was formed they had only a mixed collection of pistols of many different kinds, calibres, reliability and mechanical safety. At that time they decided that the only practical way of dealing with training and protecting themselves from accidental injuries was to carry with chamber empty. The Israeli carry method is an optimised method for dealing with that policy decision but as with so many things it is likely that it gained its own momentum. This has allowed it to continue without further examination even though the original motivation no longer applies. That does not make its present use right or wrong but leaves it open to examination. That examination, if it could be carried out properly, would almost certainly end with a range of theatres of action in which some would favour the Israeli method and others would favour chambered carry as samurairabbi has pointed out.

English

samurairabbi
12-16-2011, 07:55
Always nice to be able to choose your threat...

Life is a casino, in which play is mandatory. At least, we CAN evaluate the odds at the available games, and adjust our betting accordingly.

For what it's worth: I carry condition one. Life has placed me in an American casino.

highfructosecornsyrp
12-16-2011, 08:00
asleep in my tent while camping...israeli

concealed around family/children...israeli

Any other place...condition 1

Glockbuster
12-16-2011, 08:41
I entirely agree with the need for some evasive or disruptive maneuover but that is very likely to involve getting off the X at high acceleration towards the BG and some 45 degrees left or right. You then gain a little time but only a little. In that time you have to make a hit and the only way to do that is one handed point shooting. If you break to your right, the presentation towards the target is at least in a direction that allows you to rack your pistol as part of the same movement. It takes some time but is not too bad. If you break to your left, you need to present initially to your front in order to rack the pistol and then change the direction of the pistol completely to fire to your right or right rear. telative to drawing in the direction you will be firing, this takes a lot more time and that extra time gives the BG the chance to catch up and hit you first. This difference between moving left and right puts you in a predetermined bias towards moving to the right and that might be blocked in some way.

I am sure from your post that you will understand that as you run evasively your body has to face your direction of motion, but for those that do not understand or have not practiced getting off the X it is worth stating. The result is that you have freedom of directional movement only for your arms and head. It is not possible or desirable to use two hands or the sights.

I believe this is enough of a difference in this particular situation to be an advantage to chambered carry rather than unchambered carry but other situations will have different ballances and how that all weighs out with the risk of NGs is an unknown. Unfortunately I believe we need, as individuals, to make the choice one way or the other because changing method to suit the circumstances of the day or minute is likely to lead to dangerously misappropriate actions under stress.

I think it is also worth stating that the Israeli carry method is a historic carry over. When Israel was formed they had only a mixed collection of pistols of many different kinds, calibres, reliability and mechanical safety. At that time they decided that the only practical way of dealing with training and protecting themselves from accidental injuries was to carry with chamber empty. The Israeli carry method is an optimised method for dealing with that policy decision but as with so many things it is likely that it gained its own momentum. This has allowed it to continue without further examination even though the original motivation no longer applies. That does not make its present use right or wrong but leaves it open to examination. That examination, if it could be carried out properly, would almost certainly end with a range of theatres of action in which some would favour the Israeli method and others would favour chambered carry as samurairabbi has pointed out.

English

You certainly have good points in this post English, I can relate to that much more than the time advantage you stated in the previous post.

Don´t forget though, that close quarters combat requires much more training than the C1 vs C3 argument. And, it is more common among police work than a private citizen carrying for self protection. As a private citizen I´ll try to put distance between me and my attackers. As a police officer, I will have to approach the suspects to do my duty. A gun drawn would have to be evaluated in the first case, and C1 could also work against you.

Defense jerking as you mention is a good maneuver and most certainly works best with C1.

I like your post, it has good substance.

Arc Angel
02-23-2012, 14:34
I’ve participated in so many of these C-1 vs. C-3 threads that I’m wondering whether or not I should do it again? Well, ……. I’m reminded that, ‘One man’s meat is another man’s poison.’ ‘One person sees a bowl of lemons, while another see a pitcher of lemonade.’

Is C-3, ‘Israeli carry’ an anachronism? The Israelis have, by no means, a patent on C-3 carry. C-3 has been used by various military and police forces all over the world; and, I would suspect, for decades longer than Israel has even been in existence.

I, also, find myself wondering exactly who, the heck, is replying to this thread? With the present seven pages of replies how many respondents have actually, ‘been there and done that’? Do American civilians really need to go armed and prepared to address an instantaneous CQB ambush?

Does American law enforcement need to carry chambered all of the time. (Many European police agencies have carried in C-3 for, literally, decades.) Somehow, I don’t think too many officers have been lost; and nobody’s ever going to know just how many lives have been saved by C-3 carry?

With all the back and forth blah, blah, blah, about C-1 being faster, C-1 requiring only one hand, and C-1 requiring less manual dexterity, I’m going to suggest that anyone who thinks surviving a pistol gunfight comes down to little more than either draw speed, or the use of one hand is destined to have a very short avocation as a pistol gunfighter.

For instance I, once, asked a hot shot gun-guru how he might expect to survive if his attacker was right on top of him and he was in C-3 when he tried to draw? He looked at me, thought for a moment, and replied, ‘Wouldn’t be the first person who’s skull I’ve smashed with a Glock!’ Close quarter battle is a world all of its own. Getting, ‘up close and personal’ while your brain is locked into one set response can get you killed.

Now, admittedly, I spent 30 years in the martial arts grappling with other people; but, if I should suddenly find myself in some sort of CQB, ‘instant ambush’ there’s going to be a lot more going through my brain than just drawing and firing from retention. (My support hand knows how to do a lot more than just sweep an attacker off me, too.) In fact, ‘up close and personal’ isn’t what I would regard as an ideal situation for the use of a handgun.

For this matter, I have long thought that anyone who allowed himself to be caught, ‘up close and personal’ in a CQB, ‘instant ambush’ was walking around in the wrong frame of mind to begin with. I’ve only been caught in two, ‘instant ambushes’ in my entire life. The first event occurred when I was only 9 or 10 years old. I trusted a stranger; (a juvenile local ruffian) and he turned on me with a brick in his hand and smashed me in the head. That really hurt and taught me an invaluable lesson. The second event occurred while I was in college, and involved a young woman. I learned from that event, too.

Not to be rude, but I find much of this to be rather amusing. Here are all these people talking about how great their personal carry preference is when, in reality, very few of them have ever been in a single gunfight to begin with. If I want to know about pistol gunfighting then I want to study or talk with people like: Lance Thomas, Peter Solaris, or even Dave Spaulding. It’s men like these who’s gunfighting insights I consider to be invaluable.

Now, I’ve got a few comments of my own that I feel like sharing - NOT to argue, arguing is easy, but to expand a few, ‘mental horizons’. In no particular order:

1. ‘Is un:chambered as fast to draw as chambered?’ In my own humble experience it certainly can be. (Depends upon who is doing the drawing.)

2. ‘Is racking the slide by hand more likely to create a jam?’ In my opinion this is the most valid of ALL the objections against C-3 carry. Were I to be carrying in C-3 and suddenly find myself in the middle of a personal attack, this is something that I would be concerned about. Which brings up another interesting point about a, ‘CQB instantaneous ambush’: When caught by surprise some people react with, what I’ll call, a, ‘fear response’; and others will react with, again what I’ll call, a, ‘fight response’.

A, ‘fear response’ is the one we hear about most often on gun forums: Tunnel vision, auditory exclusion, loss of fine motor control, and, ‘time compression’. A, ‘fight response’ is rarely, if at all, ever discussed. Maybe you’ve got to be Sicilian; I don’t know; but a, ‘fight response’ is almost the dialectic opposite of a, ‘fear response’. Personally, I’ve long identified it with a concept of, ‘fighting with a cold mind’. (We see it in the movies all of the time; it’s believable on screen; but, for mysterious reasons, it remains almost completely unbelievable on internet gun forums.)

3. We can have this same old discussion over and over. The most significant problem I see with Israeli is it takes two hands. I can imagine hundreds of scenarios where you need one hand for the draw and the other hand for, well, hundreds of things.

Well, you do and you don’t. Personally, and as indicated above, I don’t see the need to use two hands as an insurmountable obstacle to, either, C-3 carry or using a Mossad draw. In fact, I strongly suspect that the need to use two hands as well as the additional time involved has, quite possibly, kept a lot of C-3 carriers alive while in the midst of dire circumstances.

Here, I’m going to suggest that it’s, at least, ingenuous to believe that every gunfight a person might be in will be a, ‘CQB instantaneous ambush’. Again, I strongly suspect that, on many occasions, numerous warning signs are going to be present. The trick, the art, to successful engagement lies in how well these early warning signs are perceived; AND how appropriate a response is initiated.

(An effective reply requires, both, experience and luck; and, as far as I know, has little, if anything, to do with how someone is carrying his pistol.)

4. Cops the world over don't use this method. If it's so great, why not? …… Do the Israeli's even use Israeli Carry today? I don't know but I'd bet against it.

First, that’s a, ‘blanket statement’; one that I’m not sure applies universally to all police forces. What can be said with certainty is that until the 1970’s many foreign police forces, in fact, did use C-3 carry. So did numerous military services like the: US Marine Corps, and British SAS. It is my (unverified) understanding that many European police forces are presently in a state of transition between C-3, and C-1 carry. Some do; some don’t.

Now, do the Israelis still use C-3 carry today? The right person to ask would be GT’s, ‘Lior’. I haven’t communicated with him in awhile; but, the last time we corresponded I seem to remember him saying that, with the recent exception of certain military units, Israeli policemen still use C-3 carry.

5. ‘Try it both ways in IDPA or some similar course setup, and compare times.’ During a typical IDPA match, I’ve watched a lot of shooters, either, miss or shoot poorly with their first shots. The other thing an IDPA match can teach you is, ‘When’ fast is too fast.

6. Something interesting I heard ..... My father-in-law was in the Korean theater of action, in the Air Force. He told me that when on guard duty in pairs, out around the parked planes, they would carry the 1911 un:chambered.

Yup, C-3 pistol carry was, indeed, the US military standard throughout both the Second World War, and Korea. ‘Why’? I honestly believe that C-3 carry has saved a lot of American soldiers’ lives. (It’s just that we’ll never really know - Huh!)

7. ....... However, I can't think of single topic in the realm of handguns that deserves greater focus. Exercising safety, however we carry, is more important than the efficiency of our draw.

That’s always been my opinion, too. Perhaps if the economy tanks and my neighbors start roaming the streets looking for food and women I might change my mind, though.

8. People who are highly skilled with meaningful experience are much less likely to have a firearm mishap. Condition 1 carry by those who are competent is logical and reasonable. People who are lower on the competence curve should not carry with a chambered weapon for reasons of public and personal safety. Carrying in a proper holster does not mitigate the fallibility of unskilled hands.

Yeah, I see these, ‘highly skilled people’ all the time whenever I’m on a public firing line. The fact is that - while I’m sure everyone on Glock Talk is highly skilled, habitually safety conscious, and competent - members of the (armed) general public clearly are NOT. I’m highly skilled, habitually safety conscious, and competent. This is, ‘Why’ I’m always so surprised whenever I have an unexpected accident! (Maybe that’s why they’re called accidents - Yes?)

9. http://www.ignatius-piazza-front-sight.com/2011/04/04/front-sights-monday-blog-why-you-carry-a-loaded-gun/

This sensational, almost maudlin, video is completely irrelevant and means almost nothing to the discussion-at-hand. In my opinion that jeweler would have been better off without any gun at all. One thing’s for certain, though: Poor fellow! He sure didn’t know how to use the gun he was holding; and, right from the get-go, he had entirely the wrong emotional reactions.

(In fact I know more than a dozen pistol shooters who would have, ‘dusted off’ those robbers in, ‘less than a heartbeat’; and C-1, or C-3 wouldn’t have mattered.)

10. …… I've always thought my stock Glock had a fairly safe length of pull, and in concert with the trigger safety, that's enough.

I’ve no doubt there are many people, both present and past, who would disagree with that statement. I’ll add that, in a perfect world ……. maybe; but we don’t live in a perfect world. Ours is a realm of: happenstance, unexpected events, and accidents. Many years ago I had a supervisor tell me, ‘If you want to avoid any unexpected possibility of contradiction (or failure) always make your instructions as completely irreversible as possible. ’ This was good advice; and I used it throughout my entire business career to prevent others from getting too creative or impulsive.

A C-3 chamber is one form of, ‘irreversible instruction’. Nobody can shoot himself, or anybody else, with an empty chamber. I honestly don’t believe that a (passive) trigger safety is, ‘enough safety’ for any semi-auto pistol.

11. Well there is a way to test chamber empty carry for safety, reliability, and speed in action. Go into IDPA and use a chamber empty weapon for say a years worth of matches. …….

Why do I have the feeling that I’m talking about sex with a bunch of virgins? A lot more goes into a CQB pistol gunfight than any IDPA match is able to teach. For instance, I used to think the retired factory shooter who ran our IDPA matches was an idiot. (What I really used to like, though, were those occasions when I would beat him, ‘at his own game’. I mean the guy was once a factory sponsored handgunner.) As far as I’m concerned, anyone who believes he’s going to win a pistol gunfight because he’s one-handed or fast with a gun is well on his way to being the most surprised person in the room.

12. Israeli carry is stupid. Period. End of story. Anyone who thinks otherwise has never done any ECQC training.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPO3h2bTe9w&feature=related

The above is a perfect example of what happens at close quarters when your gun goes click instead of bang.

No it’s not! That video is, instead, a perfect example of someone who’s spent too much time on an IDPA firing line, and not enough time working his way through pistol gunfighting, ‘what if’ visualization scenarios. What do you think would have happened to those several attackers if, ‘Southnarc’ had been the intended victim? The outcome would have been entirely different, yes! (At risk of appearing to be Superman, which I’m not, it would have been entirely different with someone like me, too.)

13. Among all of the people who carry firearms in the US, I believe there are more incidents of ND than there are nose-to-nose assaults where Condition 1 carry saves the victim.

How can anyone argue that a chambered gun is as safe as one with an empty chamber? If the argument is that a properly holstered gun won't fire itself, I would agree IF: the gun isn't strapped on, taken off, cleaned, laid in your underwear in public restrooms, fired at the range, shifted for comfort while driving, hung on the changing room door at Macy's, moved from the belt to the gym locker, and on and on. A static state weapon is perfectly harmless with one in the chamber; a weapon carried everyday is not a static weapon.

I've got no qualms about competent people carrying Condition 1. It strikes me as disingenuous to pretend that a chambered gun in a proper holster is all right for everyone, across the board. Some people just shouldn't carry a chambered firearm.

Perfectly logical and entirely pragmatic! (Perhaps you and I should start our own gun forum.) ;)

14. The reason that Israeli carry exists is that at least 99% of the world's population is not very competent in the handling and use of firearms, particularly pistols.

Speaking of Lior! Here he is; and, I’m able to think of few internet comments with which I’ve ever agreed more.

Israeli carry is an expression of distrust by authorities / instructors for service personnel whom they regulate.

Well, it might seem like distrust; but, administrators are often in a position to see, ‘the big picture’ much more clearly than rank and file field personnel. Frankly, Lior, I doubt that your superiors distrust you. Perhaps they just want to keep you, and others like you, alive and well.

15. That 0.19 seconds is a reasonable split time. In other words your shooters using the Israeli method could be shot once or twice by someone of about the same skill level before they get off their first shot. That is a very good argument for not using the method.

Don’t think so, English. ‘Split time’ actually places more emphasis on the second NOT the first shot. I, also, know from years of doing this that in order for second shots to mean anything, the shooter needs to have his sights well lined up for the initial shot.

If a target (often moving) is going to get hit squarely at, say, 12 yards then - as far as I’m concerned - it’s better to take a moment longer to make sure you’ve got that front sight on COM before you begin the, ‘tap, tap, tap’, sequence.

A competent point shooter can draw to the threat. That is, with a threat at 3 O'clock the pistol moves to 3 O'clock as soon as it is out of the holster and is fired without turning the body or moving the feet. The Israeli method works only with a presentation more or less to the front and that is another reason not to use it.

Huh? I think it safe to say that I know a thing, or two, about fast and accurate point shooting. (I’ve been doing it for more than 50 years; and nobody’s beat me, yet; but, then again, I've never gone up against Bob Munden or Jerry Miculek; so, who really knows!) With a threat at 3:00 o’clock the last thing a really good point shooter will do is attempt to place his pistol’s muzzle directly upon the threat. You’ve got to, ‘index’ the muzzle BEFORE you go for an accurate (kill) shot.

It is while the muzzle is being, both, proprioceptively AND visually, ‘indexed’ that a fast and smooth slide rack can be made with what, I suspect, is a minimal loss of time. Done right, by the time the target hears the slide snap shut, the muzzle will already be squarely fixed upon him! (Remember that armed confrontation I wandered into during 2007? The one I was naïve enough to post, right here, on Glock Talk. This is, exactly, what happened that night.)

Neither does a Mossad draw only work to the front. A classic Mossad draw does that; however, a modified Mossad draw can be done to either the right or the left side. (There are, at least, three different versions of the modern Mossad draw.)

In opposition to that is the undeniable fact that many people are shot with negligent discharges. As Deaf Smith says, many of those thought the gun was not loaded and would have been more careful if they had known it was loaded.

True! However, you and I, both, know that there is absolutely no justifiable excuse for that sort of slovenly safety behavior with a gun - No excuse! Doesn’t matter whether the chamber is charged, or not. Cooper’s first rule of firearm safety remains,

‘THE GUN IS ALWAYS LOADED!’

Individual carry methods will vary; but, carry methods aside, that’s exactly the way every firearm should always be treated.

The statistics of the NYPD hit rate in actual fights does seem poor; and if it really is poor in comparison to other PD’s it suggests that the general level of firearms competence is equally poor.

This might indicate that the NYPD should be using the Israeli method, or it might indicate that the NYPD should invest in more and better training, or it might indicate that some LEO’s in the NYPD should not be carrying guns at all. It does not show anything worth acting on in itself.

Over the years I’ve watched a large number of local officers from different (NJ) police departments attempt their annual pistol qualifications. Trust me! It ain’t just the NYPD that can’t shoot.

In my mind it doesn’t seem like such a bad idea for most police officers, most of the time, to carry in C-3 and use an Israeli draw. (I could be wrong; as sensible as this sounds, Mossad draws made by working police officers might give rise to an unexpected rash of officers shooting themselves and others on the draw.)

The simple fact is that it is usually a combination of two, three, or more mental errors that lead to a negligent discharge. Unless we can analyze and enumerate those possibilities and then gather statistics for them we cannot know whether the Israeli method would make a significant difference.

Sounds good! Perhaps the Israelis would be willing to share their experience and records with the rest of us?

Unless we know how many discharges happen using the Israeli method when the user knew the pistol was unloaded we won't know how dangerous the Israeli method is. The assumption that the Israeli method is safer is no more valid than the idea that a thumb safety makes a 1911 safer than a Glock.

Yeah, the more I think about this the more correct I suspect you are. We’re not really considering INDIVIDUAL user competence here; instead, what we’re actually considering is the competence of an entire GROUP.

This might sound as though I am totally against the Israeli method and I am not. What I am saying is that we cannot know with the data we have.

Wow, this thread is now pushing eight pages; and no definitive answer has been reached yet! You know, I’m developing a new found respect for this topic. Looks like there really isn’t any easy answer(s).

Gimp
02-23-2012, 16:03
Mercy! Arc, I do believe that is the longest post I have ever seen here at GT. Take it as a credit to many of your previous statements that I went ahead and read the whole thing anyway. As for reply, I think I'll trim it down to this...

Do American civilians actually need to go armed and prepared to address an instantaneous CQB ambush?

Does American law enforcement need to carry chambered all of the time.

...and just say "What part of America?" Not just what state...what city?

We're not 11 time zones wide, like Russia, but the US of A is a rather large span of land, and the various cultures you can encounter in a cheap Greyhound trip transcon will not allow for quick summarizing. I live rural...but a fast trip down to Phoenix can change my whole attitude.

samurairabbi
02-23-2012, 21:54
Oh goody. Just what I wanted for Lent: a resurrected C1/C3 thread.

But then, look on the bright side: it may divert us from rehashing plug and saf-t-blok issues.

Arc Angel
02-23-2012, 21:55
Mercy! Arc, I do believe that is the longest post I have ever seen here at GT. Take it as a credit to many of your previous statements that I went ahead and read the whole thing anyway.

As for reply, I think I'll trim it down to this .... and just say "What part of America?" Not just what state ... what city?

We're not 11 time zones wide, like Russia, but the US of A is a rather large span of land, and the various cultures you can encounter in a cheap Greyhound trip transcon will not allow for quick summarizing. I live rural ... but a fast trip down to Phoenix can change my whole attitude.

Thank you! That's a nice compliment from someone I've never met and didn't even know was, 'tracking' my remarks. Yes, it was a long post; and I promise not to do it again soon - OK. (There were times when I felt like I was writing my will or, maybe, a eulogy.) :supergrin:

I'm going to answer your question by saying, 'Everywhere'. I live in the country, too. I don't know exactly, 'Why' - things weren't this way when we first moved here - but within walking distance of my home there are, at least, two active drug dealers.

In the past 6 or 7 years the fellow who lives diagonally across the road from me was shot 5 or 6 times right in the middle of his own dining room. The shooter stood outside the window, tapped on it to get him to walk over and, then, opened fire! About 18 months after this event happened I got into an armed confrontation with a member of a major NYC street gang who appears to have been manufacturing methamphetamine somewhere not too far away.

Our farm dumpster is directly across the street from where this shooting took place. It was (depending upon your viewpoint) either my very good luck, or very bad luck to be the one who caught this fellow trying to dump his toxic crap on the property. This is a cattle farm; if any of that methamphetamine waste had leeched into the soil, no crops could have been harvested out of the general area; and no cattle would have been able to feed nearby.

So, are you and I safe in our nice country homes? I don't think so. That same social pollution, cultural immorality, and urban blight so common to ALL of America's large cities, nowadays, is presently occurring absolutely everywhere.

I don't know how well you sleep at night; but, especially since my neighbor was ambushed, I tend to be a very light sleeper. Sometimes I read posts by people who remark that they sleep with a gun under the pillow; and, somehow, that particular form of paranoia always makes me smile. Why? Because I haven't gone to bed for many years, now, without a gun under my pillow, and a Pit Bulldog at my feet.

To keep this reply on topic: Are you, now, able to appreciate just how much I believe in the validity of C-3 carry? Believe me, as far as I'm concerned, there's nothing, 'academic' about anything I've posted in this thread. It's all very serious business to me.



PS: Did you say, 'the longest post'? Not recently, and not in the past several years, but I know I've written longer posts on here. Perhaps, paradoxically, I've also received PM's from other board members who took the time to read what I had to say and wanted to thank me for the information. (I hope you got something useful out of that, 'long read', too.) :)

mdsn969
02-23-2012, 23:03
Arc Angel, Brilliant Post!!! :wavey:

Tiny Killer Robot
02-23-2012, 23:11
Delete

Bren
02-24-2012, 05:54
Arc Angel's post is too long to really respond to, but I'll repeat what I've said in the past - having reviewed the investigations, been involved in the litigation and in the cases where I've had to draw my own gun, the majority (not all) of police shootings I have seen do not involve tacticas, shooting skill, equipment or anything else. They involve drawing a gun fast and firing without using the sights, at close range, as fast as you can.

I can say for fairly certain that some officers I know wouldn't be here if they had drawn a gun with an empty chamber - 2 who drew backups from their ankles come to mind - one while a 10mm S&W was being pointed at him and one while a guy was trying to bash in his head with a crow bar and he was laying on top of his holstered gun and couldn't draw it. Another Kentucky trooper Massad Ayoob wrote an article about several years ago, in a gunfight at contact distance where the bad guy drew first and started firing.

The need for speed is more common than the need for anything else.

Now consider that civilians are less likely to draw before an actual threat, less likely to have help, less likely to wear a vest - multiply their need for speed by about 5x.

Glockbuster
02-24-2012, 06:25
Glad to see some qualified folks come in favor of the C3 camp for a change. I've said it before and I'll say it again, C1 will not make a huge difference in the outcome of things vs. C3. Many more factors at play as ArcAngel has posted.

SpringerTGO
02-24-2012, 10:03
Arc Angel's post is too long to really respond to, but I'll repeat what I've said in the past - having reviewed the investigations, been involved in the litigation and in the cases where I've had to draw my own gun, the majority (not all) of police shootings I have seen do not involve tacticas, shooting skill, equipment or anything else. They involve drawing a gun fast and firing without using the sights, at close range, as fast as you can.

I can say for fairly certain that some officers I know wouldn't be here if they had drawn a gun with an empty chamber - 2 who drew backups from their ankles come to mind - one while a 10mm S&W was being pointed at him and one while a guy was trying to bash in his head with a crow bar and he was laying on top of his holstered gun and couldn't draw it. Another Kentucky trooper Massad Ayoob wrote an article about several years ago, in a gunfight at contact distance where the bad guy drew first and started firing.

The need for speed is more common than the need for anything else.

Now consider that civilians are less likely to draw before an actual threat, less likely to have help, less likely to wear a vest - multiply their need for speed by about 5x.

+1
Well said

mdsn969
02-24-2012, 10:20
+1
Well said

It is very well said and very well thought out.

It is a personal decision, I will still only carry C3 period.

If someone wants to carry C1 good for them I have no problem with that. All I ask for is that you have no problem with me carrying C3...

SpringerTGO
02-24-2012, 10:52
It is very well said and very well thought out.

It is a personal decision, I will still only carry C3 period.

If someone wants to carry C1 good for them I have no problem with that. All I ask for is that you have no problem with me carrying C3...

Why would anyone care how you carry? It's your choice, and you should carry in the manner that bests suits your needs.
I am not LEO, not on the front lines, and rarely feel the need to even carry.Like others here, I have decades of martial arts training. But I don't walk around thinking everyone is out to get me. Or that I can take on the world empty handed. If I end up parked in a bad place at night, I take normal precautions. In my 56 years on this planet, I have never had to shoot anyone. If I ever do have to draw a weapon, it will be because I needed it yesterday.

Different people have different requirements for how they arm themselves. In some ways, it would be easier for a military or LEO person to prepare for a day at the office. Civilians have no idea if, when, or how their bad day might start.

mdsn969
02-24-2012, 11:34
Why would anyone care how you carry? It's your choice, and you should carry in the manner that bests suits your needs.
I am not LEO, not on the front lines, and rarely feel the need to even carry.Like others here, I have decades of martial arts training. But I don't walk around thinking everyone is out to get me. Or that I can take on the world empty handed. If I end up parked in a bad place at night, I take normal precautions. In my 56 years on this planet, I have never had to shoot anyone. If I ever do have to draw a weapon, it will be because I needed it yesterday.

Different people have different requirements for how they arm themselves. In some ways, it would be easier for a military or LEO person to prepare for a day at the office. Civilians have no idea if, when, or how their bad day might start.

Excellent post, to be fair my response was not directed at you but at this thread in general. I have literally gotten a PM saying I am an idiot for carrying C3. Was just saying live and let live. Ditto on the MA training...

Veedubklown
02-24-2012, 15:35
We can have this same old discussion over and over. The most significant problem I see with Israeli is it takes two hands. I can imagine hundreds of scenarios where you need one hand for the draw and the other hand for, well, hundreds of things.

When I first started CCW'ing daily, I carried for weeks, C3. Every night, I would check my trigger. Still cocked? Great, so if I had been carrying a loaded weapon, it still would be. This is going to sound rather stupid, but I think we all have our moments of realization.

I had a dream that I was attacked. It started as an argument between a stranger and I of similar size, but it went to a fist fight. Then his buddy came outta nowhere, I was on the ground, on my back (carrying SoB), and his buddy came with a knife. I couldn't get to my gun, was down, and needed my hands to hold off 2 guys.

I woke up freaked out, carried C1 since, 8 o'clock (lefty)

John Biltz
02-24-2012, 15:42
Yup, C-3 pistol carry was, indeed, the US military standard throughout both the Second World War, and Korea. ‘Why’? I honestly believe that C-3 carry has saved a lot of American soldiers’ lives. (It’s just that we’ll never really know - Huh!)
Here is the thing with the military. A general with hundred thousand troops in his command can look down on the big picture and think if we decide to chamber so many soldiers are going to shoot themselves getting on and off trucks if we don't some poor guy may walk into something but a couple of them is better than a bunch of guys shooting themselves. I've carried unchambered in the DMZ standing inches from North Korea and thought it a good idea, I did not until I stepped on a pheasant in the dark of night on my way to set up an ambush. Scared the heck out of me, sounded like a B52 taking off and it was my first night in the DMZ. Prior to Desert Storm we went with a magazine in a pocket while carrying our M16s and we carried them all the time, the Marines went with locked and loaded and I think 8 of them ended up shooting each other. There is also a political component to that, if a soldier gets shot by an an enemy, even if its because of restive carry rules its easier to explain than soldiers accidentally shooting each other, lot less paperwork as well. There have been cases where overly restrictive rules have ended up with a truck full of explosives going off next to a barracks or building.

The best carry solution I’ve heard of was with a Makarov, it was carried unchambered but you pushed the gun down and through the holster to draw, cocking and chambering as you did so.
Russian Makarov Pistol Holster - EFA-2 - YouTube

Riz58
02-24-2012, 17:25
Many excellent arguments presented here. I will try to keep my comments short.

Gun safety technology has advanced a great deal since the 1940's. Many of the concerns that originally lead to C-3 carry no longer exist because they have been engineered out of the equation.

C-3 adds one more thing to do in a stressful situation. People forget to flip off the safety and they will forget to chamber a round.

Speed can matter. As a matter of physics and biology, it is impossible to get off a shot from C-3 as quick as from C-1. The tests I have seen have been .5 to 1 second delays between C-1 and C-3 performance by good shooters. That time may equal dead.

The off-hand may not be available to rack the slide. The left hand may be engaged with the bad guy, a right-hander may be moving to his left, the hand/arm may be injured, etc. For example, in a CQB attack, I grab and deflect BG's gun hand, blade my body at the same time, and reach back to grab the gun on my hip. How will I be able to rack the slide (forget the "on my belt", "on my pant seam" stuff -won't work while struggling)

Modern firearms - C-1 is safer than the operator. It is quicker, easier, and more certain in an encounter.

Deaf Smith
02-24-2012, 21:52
You guys might want John Farnam's take on this (if you don't know who John is do a Google on him) read this:

http://www.defense-training.com/quips/03Feb12.html

and

http://www.defense-training.com/quips/06Feb12.html

Deaf

PEC-Memphis
02-24-2012, 22:23
Speed can matter. As a matter of physics and biology, it is impossible to get off a shot from C-3 as quick as from C-1. The tests I have seen have been .5 to 1 second delays between C-1 and C-3 performance by good shooters. That time may equal dead.

For a "controlled experiment" your times seem a little long. (Not that "tests" or a controlled experiment is indicative of what might or does happen in actual defensive shootings).

For experienced shooters (I'm referring to IDPA MA/EX/SS) the average of these shooters was 0.19s. While the average overall times for the less experienced (MM/NV/New-Unk) shooters were longer than the experienced shooters - racking the slide and shooting actually took less time (by 0.1s - so much for impossible) than starting with a chambered/loaded firearm.

Even with staring from a completely unloaded firearm, requiring drawing the firearm (holster) and the magazine (belt pouch), inserting the magazine, racking the slide and shooting - the times for the group was ~1/2s to 3/4s difference from drawing with a loaded/chambered firearm (still less than 1s)

Could 0.19s to 0.73s make a difference in winning and losing an actual gunfight? Sure. But there are lots (other) of places where <1s might be gained or lost in a SD situation. If the non-shooting hand were otherwise occupied - would the outcome be much worse - absolutely.

Here's how the test was conducted, raw times and scores:

Each stage was set up where the targets were four (4) yards away - seven (7) rounds; not limited. T1 is shot standing in the open - two (2) shots to the body, one (1) to the head; then move to the barricade two (2) yards to the right; from behind cover, "pie" T2 & T3 with two (2) shots each;

Here's what was different:

Stage 1 - Cover garment required, firearm holstered with magazine inserted and round in the chamber

Stage 2 - Cover garment required, firearm holstered with magazine inserted and NO round in the chamber.

Stage 3 - California OC Style - No cover garment allowed, magazine in belt pouch, and NO magazine in firearm, and NO round in chamber.

I averaged the masters/experts/sharpshooters in one group, and marksmen, novices and unknowns in second group - then averaged everyone combined in the third group, and here are the results:



MA/EX/SS - (Stage 1/Stage 2/ Stage 3)

Raw Times - 5.31 / 5.50 / 6.04
Scores - 6.48 / 6.50 / 8.06

MM/NV/UK - (Stage 1/Stage 2/ Stage 3)

Raw Times - 6.50 / 6.40 / 6.94
Scores - 7.05 / 6.90 / 8.64

Combined - (Stage 1/Stage 2/ Stage 3)

Raw Times - 6.05 / 6.06 / 6.60
Scores - 6.84 / 6.75 / 8.42

mdsn969
02-25-2012, 10:14
You guys might want John Farnam's take on this (if you don't know who John is do a Google on him) read this:

http://www.defense-training.com/quips/03Feb12.html

and

http://www.defense-training.com/quips/06Feb12.html

Deaf

Nothing here but anecdotes and name calling...

PEC thanks for some actual numbers...

Gimp
02-25-2012, 17:38
PS: Did you say, 'the longest post'? :)

Actually, I said "the longest post I have ever seen here at GT"...and no, I haven't been tracking you, I've just read other posts of yours that were equally helpful and sensible.


Up here in the Quad Cities area (around Prescott) I'm content to carry a P6 and one extra mag...and pretty sure I won't ever need the extra mag. When I travel to Phoenix, I always carry a G19 and two spare mags, make sure my wife is packing and that I have the revolver in reach from the driver's seat.

As far as Israeli carry, I figger it's like any other personal decision: personal. If someone is not comfortable carrying one in the pipe, I absolutely do not want him doing it around my family, anyway.

:dunno:

Deaf Smith
02-25-2012, 18:23
Nothing here but anecdotes and name calling...

PEC thanks for some actual numbers...

You know who John Farnam is?

Like I said, google his name. He ain't no internet jockey.

You guys, running a pact timer is just not the same as real life. In these test the shooters are EXPECTING the encounter and they are NOT expecting bullets coming at them. Don't fool yourself with these test. I've seen people mess up C3 chamber empty in IDPA. And like I said, they were expecting the encounter and no one was shooting at them.

It's kind of like the martial arts. I see people practice all kinds of fancy moves (as I do to) but in full contact 99 percent of those moves are just no used or done badly. It's real different when someone is trying to hit you and they just won't co-operate with your idea of what should happen.

Think about it. Why do so many police prefer simple weapons that don't have safeties? Cause in real life the more complex you make it under stress the more likely it will fail.

Say away from C3 unless there is some definite need for it, like your gun is not drop safe or you lack a holster to carry it safely.

Deaf

Deaf Smith
02-25-2012, 18:29
Oh and PEC,

Do that test ONE HANDED, as if they were in a struggle. But it don't 'time' so well either.

Deaf

PEC-Memphis
02-25-2012, 21:37
Do You know who John Farnam is?

Yes I do.


You guys, running a pact timer is just not the same as real life. In these test the shooters are EXPECTING the encounter and they are NOT expecting bullets coming at them. Don't fool yourself with these test. I've seen people mess up C3 chamber empty in IDPA. And like I said, they were expecting the encounter and no one was shooting at them.

Oh and PEC,

Do that test ONE HANDED, as if they were in a struggle. But it don't doesn't 'time' so well either.

Deaf

May I call your attention to the original post....
(CoF & times deleted for brevity)

For a "controlled experiment" your times seem a little long. (Not that "tests" or a controlled experiment is indicative of what might or does happen in actual defensive shootings).

For experienced shooters (I'm referring to IDPA MA/EX/SS) the average of these shooters was 0.19s. While the average overall times for the less experienced (MM/NV/New-Unk) shooters were longer than the experienced shooters - racking the slide and shooting actually took less time (by 0.1s - so much for impossible) than starting with a chambered/loaded firearm.

Even with staring from a completely unloaded firearm, requiring drawing the firearm (holster) and the magazine (belt pouch), inserting the magazine, racking the slide and shooting - the times for the group was ~1/2s to 3/4s difference from drawing with a loaded/chambered firearm (still less than 1s)

Could 0.19s to 0.73s make a difference in winning and losing an actual gunfight? Sure. But there are lots (other) of places where <1s might be gained or lost in a SD situation. If the non-shooting hand were otherwise occupied - would the outcome be much worse - absolutely.

I never made any claims about actual defensive situations - Not only did I not make any claims about defensive situations, to preemptively address the applicability, or lack thereof, I specifically stated that....

"Not that "tests" or a controlled experiment is indicative of what might or does happen in actual defensive shootings"

and

"If the non-shooting hand were otherwise occupied - would the outcome be much worse - absolutely."

I only stated that the times stated by Riz seemed a little long for the situation (experiment/controlled conditions).

May I refer you to: http://www.time4learning.com/readingpyramid/comprehension.htm

mdsn969
02-25-2012, 23:36
You know who John Farnam is?

Like I said, google his name. He ain't no internet jockey.


Of course I know who he is, and I don't really care :rofl:

I carry C3 only...

mdsn969
02-25-2012, 23:38
May I refer you to: http://www.time4learning.com/readingpyramid/comprehension.htm

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Southswede
02-26-2012, 17:24
For trained LEOs like yourself sure.

But the first year untrained CCW carrier, he is statistically orders of magnitude more likely to shoot himself Tex-Grebner style than to suffer because it took an extra second to rack his weapon.

One more video since we are on the video subject:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYvAxLX6OzE
:popcorn:


Fact is, nobody has EVER shot themselves on the draw with israeli carry. It is such a common occurence with +1 carry that many firearms training schools ban certain styles of holsters. (Serpas)
:popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:

So this guy's training took over: "I called my parents......" anyone else train this way?:supergrin:

Deaf Smith
02-26-2012, 20:25
Of course I know who he is, and I don't really care :rofl:

I carry C3 only...

And as Farnam would say, "They are willfully, arrogantly naive and impervious to logic, even when their very lives are in the balance. They probably shouldn't own a gun, nor anything else dangerous. "

And PEC, the problem is you and the others are leading people to BELIEVE there is no real difference between C1 and C3 instead of letting them know from the first the whole test is meaningless.

Deaf

RJ's Guns
02-26-2012, 22:27
And as Farnam would say, "They are willfully, arrogantly naive and impervious to logic, even when their very lives are in the balance. They probably shouldn't own a gun, nor anything else dangerous. "

And PEC, the problem is you and the others are leading people to BELIEVE there is no real difference between C1 and C3 instead of letting them know from the first the whole test is meaningless.

Deaf


Deaf

I agree with you, but I am of the opinion that you are wasting your time with these people. I am amused by those that advocate condition 3 carry because of fear of an accidental/negligent discharge. I have carried a handgun for over 35 years and I have never even come close to having an accidental/negligent discharge. Nor have I ever even come close to accidentally/negligently dropping any firearm. I wonder what kind of bozo firearms handling practices and procedures those individuals employ that would give them legitimate reasons to have such concerns.

It seems to me, that the majority of those that advocate condition 3 carry are the people that try to make us believe that they are the most experienced, trained and practiced in handling firearms and marksmanship.

No doubt, they are all Special Operators, just waiting for the occasion to go on another Raid on Entebbe type operation or lead the next Seal Team 6 raid to take out Ayman al Zawahiri.

RJ

mdsn969
02-26-2012, 22:32
And as Farnam would say, "They are willfully, arrogantly naive and impervious to logic, even when their very lives are in the balance. They probably shouldn't own a gun, nor anything else dangerous. "

And PEC, the problem is you and the others are leading people to BELIEVE there is no real difference between C1 and C3 instead of letting them know from the first the whole test is meaningless.

Deaf

Sorry Deaf, but he is WRONG. C3 has been shown time and again to be just as effective as C1 and much safer (Hint, ND is not a consideration).

This subject has been beaten to death and I will not go over the reasons to carry C3 again.

I really don't care how you carry and please respect the fact that I carry C3.

Although I really couldn't give a rats ***** what you think :supergrin:

mdsn969
02-26-2012, 22:36
Deaf

I agree with you, but I am of the opinion that you are wasting your time with these people. I am amused by those that advocate condition 3 carry because of fear of an accidental/negligent discharge. I have carried a handgun for over 35 years and I have never even come close to having an accidental/negligent discharge. Nor have I ever even come close to accidentally/negligently dropping any firearm. I wonder what kind of bozo firearms handling practices and procedures those individuals employ that would give them legitimate reasons to have such concerns.

It seems to me, that the majority of those that advocate condition 3 carry are the people that try to make us believe that they are the most experienced, trained and practiced in handling firearms and marksmanship.

No doubt, they are all Special Operators, just waiting for the occasion to go on another Raid on Entebbe type operation or lead the next Seal Team 6 raid to take out Ayman al Zawahiri.

RJ

Unfortunately, you folks are simply a waste of time :upeyes: C1 vs C3 has nothing to do with AD/ND, it is all about proper self defense techniques. Clearly you do not understand the reasons for C3.

Your remarks at the end just make you look foolish :rofl:

Arc Angel
02-27-2012, 05:22
Priceless! (Too bad Tex didn't read this thread, huh.) :supergrin:

Tex Grebner and the Art of the Negligent Discharge - YouTube

(Look for the original accident video under the name of, 'Derek Tex Grebner Shoots Himself' on YouTube.)

Glockbuster
02-27-2012, 07:21
Carrying C3 does not seem to bother some skilled shooters that I know. They carry everyday for personal protection and are VERY competent in firearms handling. The notion that people who carry C3 are somehow lacking self confidence is completely out of context.

Glockbuster
02-27-2012, 07:44
Deaf

Nor have I ever even come close to accidentally/negligently dropping any firearm. I wonder what kind of bozo firearms handling practices and procedures those individuals employ that would give them legitimate reasons to have such concerns.



Oops!!! I have dropped a firearm before. It was on C1 too. I was in a stage that involved a hand changeover. I fumbled and was DQ'd.

There, I am not afraid to admit it and can tell you it was not due to bad handling practices or procedures. It is simple human nature. Anyone, I don't care how proficient he is, can fumble.

Your argument sounds like a professional wide receiver who swears that he will never drop a pass. Even the legendary Col. Cooper had ND's.

Dangerous to go down that road thinking along those lines that there is no chance of a slip.

PEC-Memphis
02-27-2012, 09:35
And PEC, the problem is you and the others are leading people to BELIEVE there is no real difference between C1 and C3 instead of letting them know from the first the whole test is meaningless.Deaf

Deaf,

I don't know how it can be much more clear it can be than this:



"Not that "tests" or a controlled experiment is indicative of what might or does happen in actual defensive shootings"



A reader didn't have to go very far to find the sentence. It was not hidden - it was the second (and longest) sentence in the, two sentence, first paragraph. I'm not trying to be sarcastic, but did you even read it? If you didn't on the first pass - it should be clear to you by now that it was written.



Personally, my firearms are either fully loaded (C1) or completely unloaded (C4), unless ready to shoot (then C0). However, if someone is not comfortable carrying C1, and they will carry C3 for whatever reason they choose, that is much better than not carrying at all. People that say "if you C3 carry, you might as well carry a rock" bridge the gap from ignorance to stupidity.

Each method has its own very real advantages and disadvantages, I never said anything to imply otherwise - you incorrectly inferred this.

PEC-Memphis
02-27-2012, 09:48
Deaf

I agree with you, but I am of the opinion that you are wasting your time with these people. I am amused by those that advocate condition 3 carry because of fear of an accidental/negligent discharge. I have carried a handgun for over 35 years and I have never even come close to having an accidental/negligent discharge. Nor have I ever even come close to accidentally/negligently dropping any firearm. I wonder what kind of bozo firearms handling practices and procedures those individuals employ that would give them legitimate reasons to have such concerns.

It seems to me, that the majority of those that advocate condition 3 carry are the people that try to make us believe that they are the most experienced, trained and practiced in handling firearms and marksmanship.

No doubt, they are all Special Operators, just waiting for the occasion to go on another Raid on Entebbe type operation or lead the next Seal Team 6 raid to take out Ayman al Zawahiri.

RJ

RJ,

Don't read what I wrote from Deaf - read what I wrote from me.

I never advocated either method. I personally carry C1 (or as close to C1 there is with a Glock - would that be C-1/2 ?) and can't think of a reason for me to do otherwise.

I simply posted the results of some testing and, in fact, stated that doesn't have relevance to what might happen in a defensive shooting.

I have refrained from name calling and sarcasm, but since you started it - You bozos are reading things into my statements that aren't in them.

Riz58
02-27-2012, 12:13
What is evidence?

1. The 'real world' - well, the NYPD latest report indicates half their recent shootings were one handed. Skip and John at the NTI sessions say their studies indicate one handed is common in the real world. Both are in the business and studied lots of cases.

2. Scientists do simulations. We have two sources:

a. Matches
b. FOF

Both indicate speed differences and scenarios where two handed, unchambered are a disadvantage.

Thus, standard scientific methods indicate that Israeli carry has problems in the police and civilian world in the USA.

Choose what you want. But the evidence is clear. Saying this is just academic because you have taken a position and don't want to budge is your business. You accept the risk profile based on your opinion and abilities.

My own experience in two Suarez classes, one involving force on force, personally validates the data. Most of the time, within a few yards - one handed point and shoot. If I have a free hand in a close-quarters combat situation, I do not want to use it to be racking a slide, I want to be punching the bad guy, blocking his strike, or taking other action. I will also be moving rapidly one way or the other, and having to reach over and rack the slide affects balance in speed when moving.

Bren
02-27-2012, 13:01
Nothing here but anecdotes and name calling...

PEC thanks for some actual numbers...

I also appreciate his research, but if his research shows that drawing, racking the slide, then pulling thee trigger is faster than drawing and pulling the trigger, there is a problem with his experiment. If A and B remain the same, adding C can't make it faster, but adding practice can make either faster.

The best guess would be that they started by shooting the course from C1, so that they had the benefit of that for the second try from C3. Reverse those 2 and do the same experiment and the C3 times will be slower by a larger margin.

PEC-Memphis
02-27-2012, 13:32
I also appreciate his research, but if his research shows that drawing, racking the slide, then pulling thee trigger is faster than drawing and pulling the trigger, there is a problem with his experiment. If A and B remain the same, adding C can't make it faster, but adding practice can make either faster.

The best guess would be that they started by shooting the course from C1, so that they had the benefit of that for the second try from C3. Reverse those 2 and do the same experiment and the C3 times will be slower by a larger margin.

Before I reply - just so everybody understands - and no one infers unstated ideas, recommendations, thoughts or actions:

Tests under controlled conditions do not necessarily reflect what may, or may not, occur in actual self-defense situations.*


Yes, the original post where I presented the data had the information that C1 was shot first, then C3 and then "California OC" (my description). For the "higher level" group C1 < C3 < COC, yielding the expected result.

Another consideration that could be deduced is that, for the less experienced, there is enough variability in other associated skills (drawing, aiming, moving, trigger control, etc.) that in the test, (and only the test, not related to what may or may not happen in an actual SD event) racking the slide had less significance in the time than other skills. (And just to be clearly understood - there was no one fighting, harassing, attacking, shooting at, stabbing, biting, poking, hair pulling, making faces at, teasing, name calling, or otherwise interfering with the shooter during the experiment - acts of this type are not allowed during an IDPA match - which is where the experiment was performed).

Drawing from C1 is an often practiced skill in IDPA - much more than any other start. Among the group, none had significant practice drawing from C3. Although stoppage correction and "C4 from table" starts in IDPA have similar skills. Having shot the CoF before may have biased the results. Keep in mind that this was not a complex CoF in IDPA terms.

I would invite you to go out and collect a group of shooters with varying levels of skills, devise the parameters for your own experiment, have the shooters perform the experiment, collect the data, compile the data and present it here on GT.

*I'm sure Dennis Tueller would be glad he didn't post the results of his experiments (under controlled conditions) here on GT. Where he would be called a bozo and referred to sarcastically as a Special Operator, just waiting for the occasion to go on another Raid on Entebbe type operation or lead the next Seal Team 6 raid to take out Ayman al Zawahiri.

Deaf Smith
02-27-2012, 19:38
PEC,

Better to have said, "These test have NOTHING to do with self defense nor in any way show C3 will work when the chips are down."

And for the readers here, I've posted this many times here at GT.

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

RJ's Guns
02-27-2012, 23:59
I have a question for those condition 3 advocates, with regards to revolvers;

Do you advocate having the next chamber in the rotation of the cylinder, empty (or even the next several chambers in rotation, empty) as a precaution against the fear of accidental/negligent discharge?

Do you consider revolvers too dangerous (to the carrier and/or to others) to carry with a fully loaded cylinder?

Do you advocate carrying the revolver with an empty cylinder and a speed loader or a pocket full of cartridges? From reading the posts of those advocating condition 3 carry, at least that approach would greatly lessen their fears of accidental/negligent discharge. (Perhaps Andy of Mayberry was smarter than I thought when he made Barney Fife carry an empty revolver with a bullet in his shirt pocket).

Is there some other option, with regards to revolvers, thatI have missed, that the advocates of condition 3 carry, opine is the preferable way to carry a revolver.

RJ

PS

I do not practice criminal law, however I do have a numberof friends and colleagues that are prosecutors or limit their practice to criminal defense. I periodically discuss some of the issues, that are raised on Glock Talk with these individuals so as to get their input. Recently, I had the occasion to raise the issue concerning Condition 3 carry during a luncheon with a couple of fellow old-timers, one was a prosecutor and the other was a criminal defense attorney. Both of them immediately seized on the issue concerning "duty to retreat" (which, I am to understand is the law in the majority of the states).

The substance of the conversation was; that if there is sufficient time to draw and chamber a round, then there may be enough time to retreat. As they both pointed out, when I quoted individuals here on Glock Talk citing the minimal amount of time it takes to draw, chamber a round and fire, that not everyone is that proficient, and an individual, sufficiently motivated (without a physical disability) can cover a lot of ground in retreat, during the period of time that the average person would take to draw, chamber a round and fire. Whether or not they are correct in their perception, really doesn't matter as it may end up being your burden (trauma and expense) to prove them wrong in court. That may give some of you some insight to how the criminal justice system may perceive such a situation.

Glockbuster
02-28-2012, 06:56
Not a fair comparison my friend. Different mechanism altoghether and functionality too.

Let me ask this that I consider more in line with condition 3.

How many of you carry your tactical shotgun with one in the pipe ?

Personally, I carry mine with the chamber empty, seven in the tube, hammer cocked and safety on. Notice this goes even further than pistol C3 carry having the safety engaged. I would be willing to bet most people carry a shotgun in this way, as the method is still pretty much standard procedure. If I have to engage I press the disconnector, pump the lever and press the safety.

I don't see much fuss with carrying the shotgun in this way, and it pretty much equates to pistol C3 carry now why is that ?

And just to clarify, some of us are being referred to C3 advocates and we probably don't carry that way most of the time. We simply state some facts and discuss some virtues and advantages of C3 carry under some circumstances. You gotta give credit where credit is due and some people here simply dismiss the method as what not to do.

English
02-28-2012, 08:10
....
Do American civilians really need to go armed and prepared to address an instantaneous CQB ambush?
It seems that more than a few CQB ambushes are by more than one. Whether the ambush can be spotted and evaded is partly a matter of the intelligence of the ambushers, but I suggest that evasion cannot be guaranteed.
Does American law enforcement need to carry chambered all of the time. ... Somehow, I don’t think too many officers have been lost; and nobody’s ever going to know just how many lives have been saved by C-3 carry?
Or lost by C-3 carry!
... I ... suggest that anyone who thinks surviving a pistol gunfight comes down to little more than either draw speed, or the use of one hand is destined to have a very short avocation as a pistol gunfighter.
Of course, but where does the assumption come from that someone who believes it is potentially useful to be able to get his pistol into action in the shortest possible time and, when necessary, without the use of both hands is less able to do those other essential things than those using C-3?
.... ‘Wouldn’t be the first person who’s skull I’ve smashed with a Glock!’ Close quarter battle is a world all of its own. Getting, ‘up close and personal’ while your brain is locked into one set response can get you killed.
Of course again but why is that different for a C-I user? In this particular example, if the C-3 user had the time to draw and swing at the BG's head with his empty pistol he would have had time to draw and shoot. Really close attacks need to be defended with combative skills and the idea of drawing a pistol to hit someone with is an example of the brain locked into the wrong response pattern.
.... if I should suddenly find myself in some sort of CQB, ‘instant ambush’ there’s going to be a lot more going through my brain than just drawing and firing from retention. ... In fact, ‘up close and personal’ isn’t what I would regard as an ideal situation for the use of a handgun.
Of course again. See above.
... anyone who allowed himself to be caught, ‘up close and personal’ in a CQB, ‘instant ambush’ was walking around in the wrong frame of mind to begin with. ...
Yes, but it can happen.
.... If I want to know about pistol gunfighting then I want to study or talk with people like: Lance Thomas, Peter Solaris, or even Dave Spaulding. ....
And how many of them have extensive experience of C-1 and C-3?
Now, I’ve got a few comments of my own that I feel like sharing - NOT to argue, arguing is easy, but to expand a few, ‘mental horizons’. In no particular order:

1. ‘Is un:chambered as fast to draw as chambered?’ In my own humble experience it certainly can be. (Depends upon who is doing the drawing.)
If it is the same person with the same level of practice for both, C-3 cannot possibly be as fast.
...
A, ‘fear response’ is the one we hear about most often on gun forums: Tunnel vision, auditory exclusion, loss of fine motor control, and, ‘time compression’. A, ‘fight response’ is rarely, if at all, ever discussed. Maybe you’ve got to be Sicilian; I don’t know; but a, ‘fight response’ is almost the dialectic opposite of a, ‘fear response’. Personally, I’ve long identified it with a concept of, ‘fighting with a cold mind’. (We see it in the movies all of the time; it’s believable on screen; but, for mysterious reasons, it remains almost completely unbelievable on internet gun forums.)
I know precisely what you mean and agree, but some can and some, it seems, can't.
...As far as I’m concerned, anyone who believes he’s going to win a pistol gunfight because he’s one-handed or fast with a gun is well on his way to being the most surprised person in the room.
Of course again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by English View Post
That 0.19 seconds is a reasonable split time. In other words your shooters using the Israeli method could be shot once or twice by someone of about the same skill level before they get off their first shot. That is a very good argument for not using the method.
Don’t think so, English. ‘Split time’ actually places more emphasis on the second NOT the first shot. I, also, know from years of doing this that in order for second shots to mean anything, the shooter needs to have his sights well lined up for the initial shot.
Split time is entirely about the second and subsequent shots, but a mugging ambush or attempted abduction is initiated by the BG having a weapon in hand or displayed in a holster with hand on pistol as a threat. In order for the GG to avoid being shot, if he chooses to resist, he has to do something that starts the BG's response and reduces the chance of being shot. From less than 3 yards, if you are fit, you can get to him before he can react.

From more than 3 yards out to 5 or six yards you can get off the X, that is, out of his expectation of his line of fire, at high acceleration. Typically, this will be 45 ish degrees to left or right if he has a pistol or more or less directly away if he has a knife That gives you a little lee way as he reacts, but only a little. You now have to shoot him before his reaction is good enough to shoot you so you have to curve round behind him and shoot as soon as you can. Here, speed of draw and time to first shot are absolutely critical because his mind is catching up quickly. He has his pistol in hand and you are getting yours in hand. At this point split times become very important!

If you have gone to the left you are shooting to the right and there is no ergonomically effective way of racking the slide without delaying and disrupting that process. You have to run in the direction of your pelvis and your shoulders cannot be too far out of line or you will fall over. That means you have to be able to shoot from the articulation of the shoulder, often further round than 90 degrees. This can be done only point shooting and only one handed. You cannot line up the front sight and you may well not be able to turn your head far enough to see the front sight as you shoot with peripheral vision. Learning to shoot like this is not as difficult as it sounds. The difficulty is learning to run in the direction of your pelvis as your natural tendency is to turn to face the threat.

If you are running away from a knife attacker you have to shoot directly behind you or he will catch you. This really is shooting from the corner of your eye. In all cases you are running and not moving smoothly. Incidentally, you can shoot to about your 4.30 with the pistol upright, but to go further round the pistol has to move towards an upside down orientation. This too sounds weird but is entirely do-able.
If a target (often moving) is going to get hit squarely at, say, 12 yards then - as far as I’m concerned - it’s better to take a moment longer to make sure you’ve got that front sight on COM before you begin the, ‘tap, tap, tap’, sequence. 12 yards is borderline for this kind of shooting and is a reason why I think we are talking about different things. It is not really possible to get the front sight on COM for more than one shot if you are running all out and you have to be very good to get it on once as you are in free fall between steps. If you are standing or moving very smoothly a la IPSC then it is worth a little delay as you line up the sights but at 12 yards shooting over the slide is probably adequate.

Quote:
A competent point shooter can draw to the threat. That is, with a threat at 3 O'clock the pistol moves to 3 O'clock as soon as it is out of the holster and is fired without turning the body or moving the feet. The Israeli method works only with a presentation more or less to the front and that is another reason not to use it.

Huh? I think it safe to say that I know a thing, or two, about fast and accurate point shooting. (I’ve been doing it for more than 50 years; and nobody’s beat me, yet; but, then again, I've never gone up against Bob Munden or Jerry Miculek; so, who really knows!) With a threat at 3:00 o’clock the last thing a really good point shooter will do is attempt to place his pistol’s muzzle directly upon the threat. You’ve got to, ‘index’ the muzzle BEFORE you go for an accurate (kill) shot.
There is static point shooting and dynamic point shooting. As described above, dynamic point shooting happens as the direction of the shot changes from instant to instant and as your movement bounces your body around. The only meaningful index in dynamic point shooting is the index between hand and pistol.

A lot of traditional point shooting was taught with the pistol held two handed on the body centre line and horizontal. This was the primary index! It could then be extended by learning to move from close to the body to full extension while maintaining the secondary index of keeping to the body cetre plane. It was surprisingly accurate and fast. With practice it was useable out to 20 or 25 yards. Shooting to the side was accomplished by turning the "turret of the tank" and maintaining the centre plane index. At a run it was no more use than using the sights because the movement of the shoulders bounces the two handed hold from side to side. I suspect this is what you mean by point shooting and, strange as it will seem to those who have not done it, taking that moment to settle into the aim with static point shooting is just the same as with sights shooting.

Shooting single handed as you run is different because the inertia of the arm and the sideways freedom of the shoulder allows the pistol to stay closer on target. Point shooting while running is as different from static point shooting as it is from sights shooting.

English

English
02-28-2012, 09:27
...
Let me ask this that I consider more in line with condition 3.

How many of you carry your tactical shotgun with one in the pipe ?

Personally, I carry mine with the chamber empty, seven in the tube, hammer cocked and safety on. Notice this goes even further than pistol C3 carry having the safety engaged. I would be willing to bet most people carry a shotgun in this way, as the method is still pretty much standard procedure. If I have to engage I press the disconnector, pump the lever and press the safety.

I don't see much fuss with carrying the shotgun in this way, and it pretty much equates to pistol C3 carry now why is that ?

And just to clarify, some of us are being referred to C3 advocates and we probably don't carry that way most of the time. We simply state some facts and discuss some virtues and advantages of C3 carry under some circumstances. You gotta give credit where credit is due and some people here simply dismiss the method as what not to do.

This isn't a fair comparison either. You carry and shoot a shotgun with two hands, almost always from the shoulder and almost always in a fixed relationship to the body plane. Pumping or levering the action as you bring the gun to shoulder really takes very little extra time and does not take the gun significantly away from its route to the target. You are most unlikely to fire at the run and it would be far less accurate than doing so one handed with a pistol. There is no question of drawing to the target or shooting to your 4 or 5 O'Clock without turning your body to face the target. For at least these reasons, I disagree with your shotgun comparison to the C-3 pistol.

I sympathise and agree with your position about advocacy of one or the other position. After thinking about it well prior to this thread I have concluded that C-1 is a better option than C-3 for most competent civilians because I can imagine too many circumstances in which the time needed to rack the slide or the unavailability of the other hand to do so would be critical. I can also see reasons why some should use C-3, and competence is not always one of them, but having a gun has to be better than not having a gun. It is clear that people making the C-3 choice are not stupid and they make their choice for their own reasons. It is also clear that C-1 has its dangers, but for the individual usually they can be overcome with training and understanding. The dangers of C-3 are inherrent but might still be less than the actual dangers of C-1. I suspect that for someone really incompetent C-3 could be more dangerous than C-1 but they would be less likely to shoot themselves in the leg!

English

Glockbuster
02-28-2012, 17:15
English, yes to all of the above, but, what is it that makes this method attractive for the shotgun ?

After you've answered that, is it possible some of those same benefits could be ripped from C3 pistol carry ? Incidentaly, the israeli draw and presentation in one smooth fast motion is very similar in time to the shotgun ready.

Deaf Smith
02-28-2012, 18:01
RJ's Guns,

I have no doubt Wild Bill and most of those in the 1800s did carry their six guns with the chamber under the hammer empty as they were not drop safe.

Notice I pointed out that is one of the few reasons to carry a simi-auto C3.

There are a few good rational reasons to carry ones simi-auto chamber empty (and revolvers to.) And many good rational reasons to carry them chamber loaded.

Deaf

RJ's Guns
02-28-2012, 18:30
Not a fair comparison my friend. Different mechanism altoghether and functionality too.

Let me ask this that I consider more in line with condition 3.

How many of you carry your tactical shotgun with one in the pipe ?

.


It is not the first time, when discussing condition 3 carry, when I inquire about what mode to carry a revolver, that I get some cop out like; a revolver is a different mechanism. Well, I have a trigger gauge and I have measured the trigger pull on a number of revolvers and double action semiautomatic pistols and the trigger pull weights are about the same (8 – 9pounds). So other than one has a revolving cylinder and the other a moving slide, the alleged danger of an accidental/negligent discharge from the trigger activating the firing mechanism logically appears to be the same. Please clarify how, I am incorrect in this assessment.

The only time that I carry a shotgun is when I am in the woods, in Alaska as a defense against large dangerous animals, such as bear and moose, etc. And my shotgun is always carried condition 1. I have learned that those animals are quick and they can cover a substantial amount of ground in very little time. Bear can be very sneaky and stealthy. Moose can be hidden just on the other side of some dense vegetation, like a thicket of alders, and run through something like a thicket of alders like it is a patch of tall grass.

Carrying conditions three, in dangerous areas like Alaska, can get you killed. But then, maybe we need more of Darwin's natural selection, so as to thin the herd of humans.

RJ

mdsn969
02-29-2012, 00:45
But then, maybe we need more of Darwin's natural selection, so as to thin the herd of humans.

Why do you end a relatively well thought out post with this statement? It does not make you look like and ass, it confirms it :upeyes:

English
02-29-2012, 04:29
English, yes to all of the above, but, what is it that makes this method attractive for the shotgun ?

After you've answered that, is it possible some of those same benefits could be ripped from C3 pistol carry ? Incidentaly, the israeli draw and presentation in one smooth fast motion is very similar in time to the shotgun ready.

I thought I had given that answer, but perhaps not. You necessarily have two hands on the shotgun and two things follow from that. One is that there is no issue about needing the other hand for something else or needing to draw to the threat in a direction that makes the racking the slide very difficult or time consuming. The other is that with two hands already on the gun, working the action as it is brought to bear costs almost no time. The only time that is moderately true with a pistol is drawing to straight ahead or somewhat to the left and even then the pistol is moved around relative to its route to the target and its orientation.

The end result is that you gain the safety of an empty chamber until you want to fire at almost no time penalty with a shotgun and because there is no problem of short stroking or dragging the slide on release, as there is with a pistol, there is little extra risk of misfeeding. With a pistol there is the same extra safety of carrying with an empty chamber but there are bigger time penalties, bigger misfeeding risks, extra problems related to having to use the other hand, and severe problems if you need to draw to the threat in a "difficult" direction relative to racking the pistol as part of the draw and aim movement.

Just one small thought. Does anyone, waiting to fire in a competition or when loading their carry pistol to carry in C-1, not retract the slide a little, or feel ot look at the LCI to make sure that a round has actually chambered when they racked the slide? That is checking for a rare failure at a time when it is safe to do so. That can't be done when you carry C-3 - perhaps people who prefer to carry C-1 are just excessively anxious personality types.

English

Jake Starr
02-29-2012, 05:52
1. The reason that Israeli carry exists is that at least 99% of the world's population is not very competent in the handling and use of firearms, particularly pistols.
Stats no different in the US.

2. Israeli carry is an expression of distrust by authorities / instructors for service personnel whom they regulate.
No without due reason. I am LEO and an instructor.

3. For civilians, it is a result of a threat assessment that administrating gun handling is more dangerous than bad guys.
Same for LE...just check NYPD stats.

4. For the record, I usually carry with one in the chamber, unless I'm on uniformed duty (mandated by police regulations here - for my EDC G17)
For the record, I only carry a round in the chamber when on uniformed duty...even though my regs are not specific. or am on my way to an IPSC shooting event where I need an empty gun, in which case I carry in condition 3 (CZ SP01 Shadow - the World's Sexiest Gun).
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. :supergrin:

Glockbuster
02-29-2012, 06:45
It is not the first time, when discussing condition 3 carry, when I inquire about what mode to carry a revolver, that I get some cop out like; a revolver is a different mechanism. Well, I have a trigger gauge and I have measured the trigger pull on a number of revolvers and double action semiautomatic pistols and the trigger pull weights are about the same (8 – 9pounds). So other than one has a revolving cylinder and the other a moving slide, the alleged danger of an accidental/negligent discharge from the trigger activating the firing mechanism logically appears to be the same. Please clarify how, I am incorrect in this assessment.

The only time that I carry a shotgun is when I am in the woods, in Alaska as a defense against large dangerous animals, such as bear and moose, etc. And my shotgun is always carried condition 1. I have learned that those animals are quick and they can cover a substantial amount of ground in very little time. Bear can be very sneaky and stealthy. Moose can be hidden just on the other side of some dense vegetation, like a thicket of alders, and run through something like a thicket of alders like it is a patch of tall grass.

Carrying conditions three, in dangerous areas like Alaska, can get you killed. But then, maybe we need more of Darwin's natural selection, so as to thin the herd of humans.

RJ


If you are comparing a Beretta or a CZ or some other double action autoloader then yes, the comparison is fair.

However condition one as was referred to in the early days meant more of a "cocked and locked" for 1911 type pistols. Glocks fall somewhere along that line also with no manual safety. In either case the pull on the revolver is a lot heavier.

Glockbuster
02-29-2012, 06:52
The end result is that you gain the safety of an empty chamber until you want to fire at almost no time penalty with a shotgun and because there is no problem of short stroking or dragging the slide on release, as there is with a pistol, there is little extra risk of misfeeding. With a pistol there is the same extra safety of carrying with an empty chamber but there are bigger time penalties, bigger misfeeding risks, extra problems related to having to use the other hand, and severe problems if you need to draw to the threat in a "difficult" direction relative to racking the pistol as part of the draw and aim movement.


English

The first sentence of this paragraph is but one of the advantages, you left other benefits out.

I still think people oughta be more open minded about C3 virtues to appreciate its validity.

English
02-29-2012, 07:18
The first sentence of this paragraph is but one of the advantages, you left other benefits out.

I still think people oughta be more open minded about C3 virtues to appreciate its validity.

Why am I doing 80% of the work here? I can also see that it prevents firing on a startle response (which finger on the frame of a pistol in C-1 does not do), but why don't you tell us the other benefits. I am always happy to learn but am not a shotgun shooter.

English

Glockbuster
02-29-2012, 08:21
Why am I doing 80% of the work here? I can also see that it prevents firing on a startle response (which finger on the frame of a pistol in C-1 does not do), but why don't you tell us the other benefits. I am always happy to learn but am not a shotgun shooter.

English

Well for one thing if you have your gun taken away from you it gives you more of a chance to get it back before it is used against you. The same would apply for a pistol if one were dumb enough to go for it CQ instead of using other options. I wont mention the racking the slide noise business as it can be as much of a disadvantage.

If you must handle your pistol administratively in a regular basis, that too can prove friendlier with C3 carry. Same and more so with the tactical shotgun.

And there are other benefits I´m sure you get the point.

English, I am just trying to point out that if that method of carry choice exists broadly for shotgun carry, pistol C3 carry also is a valid choice.

cloudbuster
02-29-2012, 08:51
Re: comparisons with Shotgun carry.

Shotguns are carried in very different circumstances and for different reasons, and I think that makes the comparison tenuous.

On the sporting clays course I go to, we're required to carry shotguns between stations unloaded with the action open. That's perfectly fine, as I am not worried about sudden devastating assault by clay pigeons.

I can think of very few cases where a shotgun is carried in defense where the user isn't already expecting trouble and hyper aware -- police usually only take their shotgun out of the squad car when the S is hitting the fan or about to. Armed guards patrolling with shotguns are watching for danger before it's right in their face, etc. Homeowners responding to a break-in or strange noise are, hopefully, very aware and taking pains to not get caught at close quarters with their shotgun if possible.

Nobody just walks around with a shotgun under normal circumstances outside of hunting and sporting use.

All are very different from concealed carry: walking down the street enjoying a pleasant evening with your spouse and suddenly finding yourself accosted, being car-jacked, having the store you're in robbed, etc.

Store owners sometimes, stereotypically, have a shotgun under the counter. Frankly, given how little time a shopkeeper might have to react in such a situation, I wouldn't think they were out of line if they kept a round chambered. It's pretty much a given with the classic SxS.