[Jake Starr]

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]

Originally Posted by Bren

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]

Originally Posted by PEC-Memphis

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.

[Jake Starr]

Condition 3 is an outdated and unsafe way to carry or handle any firearm you personally use for self defense.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I am not sure where you get this idea but Israeli Carry is neither outdated nor unsafe.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]

Originally Posted by Jake Starr

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.

Originally Posted by Bren

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]

Originally Posted by Bren

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.

Originally Posted by PEC-Memphis

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

Originally Posted by Bren

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

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 . 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]

Originally Posted by dosei

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]

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]

Originally Posted by PEC-Memphis

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 . 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]

Originally Posted by stevemc

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]

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]

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_fire...ort_102207.pdf

[cowboy1964]

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]

Originally Posted by Jake Starr

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]

Originally Posted by cowboy1964

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Glockbuster

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Bren

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]

Originally Posted by PEC-Memphis

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]

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]

Originally Posted by English

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]

Originally Posted by SpringerTGO

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]

Originally Posted by English

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]

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.