The “Israeli” Draw
16-Apr-08 – 23:11 by ToddGThe so-called “Israeli” Draw is a technique advocated by some for presenting a pistol from the holster. The gun is carried with an loaded magazine but no round in the chamber. As the gun is drawn from the holster, the shooter racks the slide to load the gun.
The question is not whether it’s humanly possible to draw an unloaded gun and get off a shot. The question is whether for a given amount of time, effort, and money you’ll be better doing it one way, or the other.
- Racking the slide takes time. Anyone who disputes that is intellectually dishonest.
- Racking the slide quickly takes two hands; drawing a loaded gun is no slower when I have to work with just my strong hand if a round is chambered already.
- Racking the slide quickly and properly makes noise. There may be times when you want the gun in your hand but don’t want to draw attention to yourself. So now you have to practice multiple things: rack as you draw, rack one-handed as you draw, draw then rack as you present the gun later, draw then rack one-handed as you present the gun later …
- Racking the slide is just another opportunity to induce some kind of stoppage in your gun, especially under stress.
A simple system for vetting new ideas, techniques, and gear from Dale McClellan, former Navy SEAL and instructor for Special Tactical Services:
- Does it work?
- Is it necessary?
- Can you do it under stress?
I try to apply that thought process to everything I do and everything I teach. Carrying in Condition 3 definitely fails the second criteria, and is questionable for the third.
Train hard & stay safe! ToddG
15 Responses to “The “Israeli” Draw”
I agree with Todd. There may be very specific, special circumstances where this technique is applicable, but on the whole I don’t see any net benefit from it.
By rob on Apr 16, 2008
I know of a few organizations that run their pistols this way. I hardly agree with it, but at the same time, those who I have seen use it are extremely proficient at it, knowing they are starting a little behind the power curve, they practice more than the average person is willing to.
Seems there is quite the phenomonen of people seeing/hearing/reading about various techniiques that are used by certain people in certain organizations, and without a true understanding of the 5 W’s and H, you end up with an armchair commando making errors in judgement when selecting techniques that are used by specialized people in specialized circumstances.
By Sean on Apr 17, 2008
One of the guys in a combat pistol league I shoot in (sort of an informal IDPA type setup) carries Israeli, and does all of his training and gaming that way. While I agree that I’m not willing to give up that extra time, I’ve been impressed at how well he performs. Due mostly, I’m sure, to diligent practice; he is consistently one of the top shooters in the group.
Recently, we had a stage that involved starting with a cup in your weak hand and required engaging a target with a Failure to Stop drill before you could drop the ice cold cup o’ dirty brass and move on. (I christened it the Milwaukee Mozambique). At the buzzer he drew, charged his Glock on his holster and ran the stage. If I remember correctly, I believe he finished 3rd.
I’ve never twisted his ear to find out his exact reasoning behind carrying as he does, but I’m impressed by his commitment to the concept and his dedication to making it work for him.
Joe
By Joe Allen on Apr 17, 2008
I hope this isn’t too long as a comment here, but it may be of interest.
Although many people have heard of the Israeli method, there is little available information about how much time the extra step of racking the slide requires. When they guess, most people cite figures of a second or more. Some time ago I decided to answer the question for myself by conducting an experiment.
The experiment consisted of a series of timed trials in which I drew and fired one shot at an IDPA target at a distance of 5 yards. I used a standard DA/SA 9mm P229 in a Galco “Concealable” holster under a medium-weight jacket. Timing was with a shot timer set for a random delay start. A shot was counted for the test if it hit the 0 or –1 chest zone of the target. The times of missed shots or fumbled attempts using the Israeli method because of a problem with cycling the slide were not included in the data.
After a brief warm up, a series of 20 valid trials were conducted in which the gun was drawn from concealment and one round fired using the double action mode each time. Then a series of 20 valid trials were conducted in which the gun with an empty chamber was drawn from concealment, the slide racked manually, and one round fired using the single action mode. After the first 40 trials, two additional 10-trial series were fired, first with the standard technique and then with the Israeli method. During the two 10-trial series, a conscious effort was made to reduce the times as much as possible. The effort to reduce times resulted in a significant increase in misses using both methods and many more fumbled attempts at manually cycling the slide.
The results were as follows:
Standard method, first 20 trials: average = 1.52 sec, standard deviation (S.D.) = 0.05 sec.
Standard method, all 30 trials: average = 1.48 sec, S.D. = 0.06 sec.
Standard method, last 10 trials: average = 1.43 sec, S.D. = 0.04 sec.
Israeli method, first 20 trials: average = 1.81 sec, S.D. = 0.11 sec.
Israeli method, all 30 trials: average = 1.80 sec, S.D. = 0.10 sec.
Israeli method, last 10 trials: average = 1.77 sec, S.D. = 0.08 sec.
The data indicate that manually cycling the slide cost me about 0.3 second per trial, or about 20 percent more time than using the standard method. That was true of both the trials in which I didn’t try for maximum speed and those in which I made an effort to get the shot off as quickly as possible while still maintaining a reasonable level of accuracy. (Of course, the 20 percent figure is valid only for this particular test which was conducted at a shooting distance of 5 yards; longer ranges would increase average shot time and reduce the percentage that 0.3 second would add, and shorter ranges would increase the time delay percentage.)
Another important issue for me was the number of misses and fumbled attempts to get a shot off using the Israeli method. As already noted, misses and fumbled attempts were not included in the above times, but fumbles were much slower than successful trials—often at least two to three times as long. I did not include them in the data because someone who was more practiced with the Israeli method would obviously make fewer mistakes when using it. One thing that the Israeli method must always involve, however, is the necessity of making the transition from cycling the slide with the support hand to achieving a good, two-handed grip on the gun for the shot. The standard method allowed me to achieve a proper supported grip very early in the process. During the initial 20 trials of each method, I had no misses with the standard method and five with the Israeli technique. Again, of course, more practice with the Israeli method would help eliminate the accuracy problem, but it’s obviously still a factor to consider and cope with.
——————————————-
A disadvantage of the Israeli method I haven’t seen discussed before is the third one on Todd’s list. I have, however, actually read claims by some people that if they draw a gun, they will shoot automatically and without hesitation. As bizarre as this philosophy is, it would eliminate the problem of when to rack if drawing a pistol with an empty chamber: Don’t draw until it’s time to shoot and then rack and shoot immediately. It’s nevertheless very difficult to imagine any sensible person’s deliberately handicapping himself to such a degree. (It’s also difficult to even take such a claim seriously, but I’ve read stranger claims, so ….)
I have read many reasons to justify using the Israeli method. I have yet to encounter one that made the slightest sense. It’s interesting to read of highly-accomplished practitioners of the technique. Every time I do, however, I can only wonder how well they would do if not for that self-imposed disability.
There’s an old observation about the dancing bears that were once a common feature of traveling carnivals: “What’s remarkable is not how well the bear dances, but that it dances at all.” If I’m ever in a gunfight for my life, I hope to fight as well as I possibly can, and not as well as possible despite a severe handicap. If someone describes it later, I’d want him to say, “He fought well and won,” not, “It’s amazing he was able to fight at all.”
By JohnO on Apr 17, 2008
I served in the IDF during the 1980’s. At that time the rational for the condition 3 presentation seemed to be the low level firearms safety among the Israeli’s. Israel does not have a gun culture like the USA. The technique originated with a retire Marine who has having trouble training Israeli security forces in the use of handguns.
By LSK on Apr 18, 2008
One-handed racking?
By red on Apr 18, 2008
There are a variety of techniques taught to rack the slide of your gun when you only have one hand available.
By ToddG on Apr 18, 2008
So, how often does it cause the Israelis to loose gunfights? If it decreases NDs, and isn’t getting people killed, maybe that’s why it sticks around?
By MSO on Apr 22, 2008
MSO — how many of the Israelis who today carry a pistol as their primary weapon are carrying chamber empty? From what I can determine, the answer is very few. That’s the problem with the technique. Many people think it’s superior because they have no concept of who is using it, when, or why.
By ToddG on Apr 22, 2008
I agree w/ LSK - I thought this technique was employed to mitigate danger from large numbers of moderately to poorly trained individuals carrying firearms on a daily basis.
As a technique I think it is inferior to Cond 1. As a safety procedure for an armed society, I really don’t know.
Upshot is, I don’t think this originated w/ people trying to figure out what the most effective way to quickly employ a handgun was.
By Striker5 on Apr 24, 2008
168,000 active duty persons comprise the IDF’s land, air, and sea groups, which also have reserve members. Conscription of both sexes occurs at age 18. Their condition 3 handgun policy appears to mirror the U.S.’s policy on carrying the 1911 .45. Did not this policy change with the adoption of a SA\DA auto pistol with a decocker/safety feature? I seriously doubt that the Israelis would consider any other policy with the B Hi-Power.
By William Calcote on Apr 24, 2008
The student who returned fire at the library and killed the AK shooter. Was he carrying chamber empty? Is everyone required to carry that way (my impression) or just the IDF?
Not the best way to carry, but not as bad as some are making it out to be either.
By MSO on Apr 24, 2008
MSO — Just because it wasn’t a problem in one circumstance doesn’t mean it’s a smart way to carry. Wasn’t there a school shooting years back here in the U.S. where the hero of the day retrieved a weapon from his truck in the parking lot? I don’t think that one instance should teach us that keeping your weapon in your truck is not so bad …
By ToddG on Apr 25, 2008
Look at the DEA shooting report for 2007. How would chamber empty carry have made a difference? How about NYPD?
A quick draw/shot is rarely the _real_ difference between life and death. Rarely is a quick reload. Or a bigger bullet. Or more bullets…
When the are, they are really important, but they rarely are.
Not saying it’s smart, or dumb, or worse or better. It’s a way to carry, and there are good and bad reasons to go there. Or not.
I don’t go there, but if I had to, I wouldn’t lose any sleep over it. Just some free time practicin’.
By MSO on May 1, 2008
I have lived, shot, and served in Israel for many years, and I am very familiar with the “Israeli Carry”. It is certainly not the fastest way to get into action, but it is the safest for barely-trained civilian carry in the usual crowded Israeli civilian environments (schools, busses, streets, malls, etc). A dropped gun will not fire, and a lost or misplaced gun found in cond 3 is safer than in cond 1. It had its roots in the early days of Israel with the many polyglot arms available–all with their own particular safety systems and Manual of Arms. Visualize an odd hodge-podge of worn-out BHPs, 1911s, Lugers, P-38s, PPKs, Steyrs, Webley autos, Rubys, etc, and you get the idea. The only fast and safe way of training and carry for those non-gun folks was cond 3 and rack on the draw. This out-moded cond 3 carry has carried over till this day–even tho there are much better and faster methods now available–I certainly do not use it and rely on cond 1 in all of my EDC guns–dmd
By dmd45 on May 11, 2008