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.”
JohnO
Evertime I read about the Isreali method I think of the time I was almost attack or car jacked. I was in a situation with an attacker in front of me and later would find out one was behind me. There was no way I could have produced a gun and racked as my weak hand was already held up to show the attacker to stop and take defensive measures if needed.
Taking times like these in a quick draw is good info, but means little value to me. I would rather see how someone using this method does against an attacker on force-on-force with someone that is 10 feet from them. Would they be able to deflect the attack and draw the weapon from cover rack and get a shot off before they are stabbed?
I have seen people rack a slide against clothing (Gabe) when drawing. However, I have always caught my cover garment when trying that method.
I have a problem with not counting the bobbles, and foul ups when conducting the test as I think it’s very likely that under deadly stress, we will skew towards fouling up a motion than doing it well.
More important than the methodology is the Israeli method’s huge and life threatening assumption that we will have BOTH hands available to manipulate our pistols if we choose to carry it Condition 3. I can think of lots of times that I drew pistols as a cop that required I run the gun one handed, as I was holding flashlights, radios, squirming/fighting suspects, keeping bystanders at bay, etc. I can also think of occasions where good guys were wounded or had their off hands full at the time they needed a gun to save their lives. For that reason, I think it’s a nice “trick” but not a solid TTP. Jeff Gonzales of Trident Concepts has a nice term for a Condition 3 pistol that I think is very illuminating. He calls it a “Dead Man’s Gun”.
I can’t speak for JohnO, but I don’t think he was trying to give a worst-case example of the Israeli draw. On the contrary, he was trying to demonstrate how it would work under the most ideal conditions: two hands, a superlative level of skill where fumbles are less likely, etc. Even then, there was enough of a delay that most people could have fired two extra shots.
Unfortunately, many people automatically assume that anyone who investigates and discusses something like the Israeli carry/draw method must be an advocate of the technique. In my case nothing could be further from the truth. I believe that at best it’s an example of how the people who have been the most successful in difficult endeavors (such as establishing a nation while surrounded by implacable enemies bent on their destruction) are often those who are least able to adopt new, better ways at a later date. And at worst it’s simple a silly affectation embraced by people who are overly impressed by historical precedent and are incapable of thinking for themselves.
I may be wrong, but I always assumed that the empty chamber carry was a reaction to too many unintentional discharges when weapons were handled while fully loaded. During the early days before and after the establishment of the State of Israel, its soldiers were equipped with a great hodge-podge of weapons that were often in very poor condition. Most of its fighters had little, if any, prior experience with firearms and there was scant time or ammunition to spare on training when the country was fighting for its existence. Then as now Israelis were human beings with the usual complement of body parts, including a single brain. Courage and dedication to a cause don’t compensate for ignorance and lack of skill when it comes to handing firearms safely. If fully loaded weapons were implicated in too many “friendly fire” deaths and injuries, it would be unsurprising that an empty chamber rule was adopted.
Whether I’m right or wrong, though, the empty chamber might have made sense at one time and it may still make sense under certain limited conditions even today. It doesn’t, however, make sense for most people who rely upon handguns for defensive purposes, and if it does make sense for any reason at all, the proper solution to that problem is a better handgun, more and better training, or both—not an outdated, self-imposed handicap.
Regarding my experiment and data, I realize that eliminating the fumbles skewed the results, but I believe incorporating them would have been even worse. As I mentioned, the objection to including fumbles would have been that a more practiced and skilled user of the Israeli method wouldn’t suffer as many miscues as I did. My experience with the technique has been limited to a few widely-separated range sessions. People can argue that even my successful trials were not a fair evaluation of the technique because of my lack of experience. And I wouldn’t dispute that. My purpose in conducting the experiment was to demonstrate the best I could do: if chambering a round after drawing a pistol added only 0.3 second to my times, estimates that it adds a second or more the process are clearly incorrect. I didn’t intend to demonstrate anything more than that.
The reason I described my experimental method in some detail, however, was to allow other shooters to compare my results with theirs. If someone wants to run a bunch of trials and document the effects of fumbles, etc., I’d be happy to read the results.
Excellent read, thanks for the time and patience needed to conduct this exercise.
I think John’s times are probably fairly accurate, and I agree with his reasoning to toss out the fumbles. As he said, a more praticed person probably wouldn’t have them in the first place. I’ve been taught (and teach) the Israeli Draw and consider my fumbling it to be on par with me missing the safety on a C1 gun. It happens, but it is rare enough I don’t spend much time on it.
As for the times, I had the advantage of having a personal research crucible for several years between my college students and my CCW students. Without going into lots of detail, the average difference in time between C1 and C3 was right at the .2 second mark after about an hour of intensive training. Interestingly, there were a number of students who found the Israeli draw regularly was as fast or faster for them to get off an accurate first shot with the traditional DA/SA type guns.
I’ve heard a lot of reasons why this technique was originally developed some contradict others, and some are just wacky. However my biggest problem with this is doesn’t relate to any of the practices above, but relates to bringing the gun on target when your weak hand is fending someone off, or holding on to something. You’re screwed. I’ve seen numerous examples of Israelis using this technique coming from under undercover garments (dressed as women), and with the amount of clothing in the way, and the likely hood of people being in a CQB situation, it just doesn’t look like a sound technique. If you have the element of surprise on someone, sure, it might work. but if you are engaged in a hand to hand fight and need to draw your gun, and it’s an empty chamber, then what?
A legitimate question, Rob, and all I can say is I’ve been looking into this for a long time now, and it simply doesn’t seem to be an issue. There just don’t seem to be many instances where you have to draw your gun and fire one-handed while using the other hand to fight off a bad guy. That is the biggest problem about arguing that C3 won’t work…there are literally decades of time and thousands of events to look at, and we just don’t see much of a problem.
my debating this is kind of pointless as I can’t even carry that way up here. But I do like debating, LOL. So, “Not much” of a problem = “a problem” in my books. Or put another way, this was the answer to a question that didn’t need to be asked. If a person is going to carry, why would you carry a gun in a way that may present a problem, more so than any other problem that might encounter, like some one taking it away from you, AD/ND, or the like? If one was to weigh the various issues surrounding CCW, be it for personal defense use or for UC work, I would say the possible issues of one hand being engaged (and therfore making it more difficult to bring the handgun into action), are much more weighted than any other, when considering whether or not to carry a gun loaded or not.
hopefully that wasn’t too confusing.
That goes back to the issue of context as discussed on the sister thread to this one. Others might argue that for them and their situation the chances of having the off hand engaged such that they are unable to get the gun into action are far more remote than having an administrative AD/ND. The equation is:
Gain a slight presentation advantage in the extremely rare event that one might not be able to use both hands in an attack -OR- Gain a safety advantage in the thousands of events cases of administrative handling of the firearm. That equation shifts based on training, equipment, situation, and so on.
The literature is full of instances of AD/NDs occurring, but it is fairly difficult to find legitimate “only had one hand available” draws. Would you worry much about not being able to present the gun if the strong-side was occupied? It would seem that is just as likely as to have the weak-side occupied in an attack.
Good points David, and I do consider the strong hand being engaged, so I practice draws with me weak, at least out of my practical gear. No way I’m going to mess with a weak hand draw on my race gear that is just asking for an accident!
And you’re right of course there are plenty of documented AD/NDs occurring during administrative handling. Go to any police station and look for the mirrors and pictures hung in odd places….. However I still don’t see the unloaded pistol being an advantage at anytime (I also disagree with mag safeties). While I don’t know of any UC shootings that involved grappling with a suspect prior to the draw, I do know of a few uniformed events where only one hand was available for the draw, and had it been unloaded, they would’ve been screwed, just like the Mountie who had the mag fall out while being shot at in the front seat of their car, subsequently the Mountie was killed being unable to return fire. All these things say to me that an unloaded gun is simply a weight, a nice one, but still no more useful than a rock. I would rather risk an ND than having a gun not ready to go. But that’s me. And it shows just how varied opinions can be between people that may essentially agree with one another on a core issue (CCW). Of course another worry I have is that governments always seem to look to the strangest places to enact rules and legislation, in Canada we’ve seen that far too often with our gun laws. What if some legislator decides that sure you can get a CCW in [insert state of choice] but you have to carry it unloaded? And uses the Israeli experience as justification. Yeah I don’t think that would go down too well.
I think it important to realize that while we use the term “Israeli draw” that description is mostly a function of media. The “Israeli draw” was the primary method for folks carrying autoloaders anywhere in the world, including the U.S., until the 1970s when chamber loaded carry began to become accepted. While the Israelis may have popularized it in modern lore, C3 was the preferred carry method of autoloader-equipped military and police around the world, as well as civilians, long before Israel got in on the act. In fact, one reason they ended up with the method is that it was the dominant and preferred method for gun carriers at that time. It also fit into their particular logistic needs later on, and thus became somewhat entrenched.
As for a gun carried C3 being no more useful than a rock, let’s look at your example. The powers that be decide yes, everyone can CCW but only with an empty chamber. Would you CCW with a firearm with the empty chamber or would you carry around a rock? Which do you think would be better to have for SD purposes?
oh I’d still go for the gun, although if they made good CCW holsters for rocks…….
I think the biggest reason for C3 carry back in the day had to do with the weapons available at the time. 1911 and Hi Powers being the most prevalent semi autos. Canadian forces used to dictate C3 with the Hi Power, and maybe still do, but they don’t with the units that get 226’s. The prevailing train of thought back then was geared toward the lowest common denominator when it came to training. Which has some basis on armed forces level. But I don’t think that same kind of thinking can be translated over to the individual who is interested in obtaining the skills necessary to CCW. There is a huge difference between conscripted soldiers who might not want to be there, and people wanting to do something.
From my understanding the entire reason behind the C3 carry back then was because it was simpler to do then trying to ensure people applied the safety before holstering the gun, and that they took the safety off when intending to fire. When you are faced with training what could be a bunch of bumble f*&$ks you certainly may want to keep it simple, possibly too simple.
Some thoughts: Being forced to rack the slide as part of the drawstroke is going to have an impact not just on first shot speed but proper grip and therefore followup shots. Even if that weren’t the case, we’re talking about 0.20 seconds. Will it matter? Not in most circumstances. But what about those circumstances when it would matter?
Do people have ADs? Yes. Often, they’re with guns that the person believes (mistakenly) is unloaded. If we’re comparing apples to apples, we need to talk about ADs caused by someone purposely drawing a C1 pistol but not intending to make it go bang. Does it happen? Sure. Not too often, though.
So here is the choice: Carry C1 and accept a risk that you can control yourself by your own behavior, or carry C3 and accept a risk that you cannot control because it is purely situational.
awesome summation Todd. Both you and David articulate your thoughts much better than I do!
Hi, David!
While I can’t argue concerning the data over time that indicates that C3 vs. C1 carry in general isn’t much of an issue, I want to add that some handguns are more amenable to C3 carry than others. I’ve had personal experience that my Beretta 92 FS (and, for instance, TDA S&W autos, and others with slide-mounted safeties) is unsuited, due at least partially to my world-class klutz status. I have at least once in a match stage with an “unloaded gun” start grabbed the Beretta, racked the slide, tried to engage the first target, stopped to disengage the safety that I had accidentally engaged while racking the slide, and then continued on. It can reasonably be argued that this is a training problem on my part…but why put oneself in this situation in the first place? IMO, C3 carry just gives Murphy an additional opportunity to work his special magic.
Also, FWIW, C3 carry for the military is an administrative carry. In the current context, the last thing you do before going outside the wire is to dismount, chamber a round, apply the safety, mount back up and continue the mission.
Also, if you’re not carrying a single action auto (1911, BHP, etc.), is it really C1 if you’re carrying a round in the chamber and no safety engaged? Uncle Jeff would probably call it Condition Zero, and question the sanity of anyone who would use such a pistol. 😎
Rob–sure, part of the issue was the guns available at the time. But note that many people still carry those guns or some functional equivalent to them even today. Which is why I always go back to “different people, different equipment, different situations, different needs, different solutions”. Again, what is the context? For most gun owners and carriers, I’d suggest the lowest common denominator is a pretty good default. I’ve been a CCW instructor for a long time, and I can tell you very little practice is engaged in by many folks. I’d bet half of my CCW renewal students shoot a grand total of 36 rounds once every 4 years…because that is all they have to!
Todd–I don’t know if it is fair to separate out NDs/ADs by narrowing categories. I see your point, but I think that if one is looking at a technique or method for carry one needs to look at the method in the whole “carry” context, not one small segment of it. And I think we get too wrapped up in the time issue. If I can draw and shoot using C3 faster than somebody else can draw and shoot using C1, does that prove anything about C1 or C3? There are so many other things, like holster design, or even placement of the holster, that will impact the overall preesentation time. BTW, according to some of the folks I’ve worked with, part of the reasoning behind the rack in the Israeli doctrine is that it assures you get a good grip thus improving follow-up shots! Howard Linett (aka David Stone) is one of those who takes that position and has made a pretty good case for it, IMO.
Chuck–Long time no see/hear, compadre! Hope things are well with you. Yes, the type of gun certainly has some impact on the issue, but again that matters most only if one is worrying about those fraction of seconds of speed. But that works the other way, also. One of my friends spent decades carrying the Browing Hi Power. He always carried it C3, and even now still carries it C3. His reason? He finds the safety to be a problem, and he feels the reliablity of the gun FOR HIM is increased by racking the slide instead of trying to hit the safety. I’m that way on Walther PP-type guns. I actually get a faster accurate 1st shot by racking and firing as opposed to fighting through that miserable DA pull. And C3 may be administrative now, but I know that as an MP we always carried the 1911 C3.
David — Yes, I do think it’s fair to separate out the ADs that are caused specifically by the carry method. All other ADs are, at best, question marks. We’ll never know whether carrying in a different condition would have led to a different outcome. An awful lot of people seem to have ADs with guns they thought were unloaded, after all.
We’ll have to agree to disagree about the speed thing. Even if we suppose it’s only a quarter of a second difference, that’s one more shot the BG gets to take while you’re bringing the gun into play than he’d get if you didn’t need to rack the slide. Will that one bullet be the one that matters? Do we really want to take that risk?
As for the grip thing, I’m at a loss to figure out how anyone could rationally suggest that a shooter gets a better grip on his pistol from racking it manually compared with simply getting both hands on the gun properly right out of the holster with no extra, extraneous movement.
Again, I’m not saying that C3 carriers are doomed or stupid or should be shunned by society. Someone carrying C3 certainly has more going for him than someone carrying C-nogun. It may very well be the best option for folks who have zero interest in guns and never practice. But those people aren’t likely to be reading these discussions or getting the benefit of any kind of professional development.
Someone who’s only shooting 36 rounds every four years isn’t likely to have enough skill to do anything but get lucky, anyway.
I don’t know shunning seems like a good idea to me that or stoning?
😉
Ummmm…is there a limit on the posts here?
I don’t see the rationale for differentiating among ADs. If one wants to go that route, it seems logical to point out that there can be no AD if the gun is in C3 mode.
As for speed, that is the big bugaboo it seems, without much validity. If one’s speed meets a certain standard, why would it matter if that standard is reached in a different manner? We don’t walk around with a loaded and cocked firearm in our hands all the time, even though that would be faster than the way most of us carry now. All sorts of things impact the speed of presentation, not just whether the chamber has a round in it or not. We regularly compromise our speed in the name of non-gunfight considerations. Why is it that C3 is the only thing that seems to get all the disdain? Particularly given that C3 does not slow one down that much, and in some situations actually increases the speed, it seems much to do about nothing.
The grip? Obviously we teach different calibers of folks. Getting a good grip on the gun is one of the biggest problems I’ve encountered with most of the CHL students I’ve had. The rack does force the gun back into the strong hand quite well. As mentioned, that is not necessarily a big issue for me, but I think it worth pointing out that some trainers do consider that a strong point.
And you have hit the nail on the head. MOST gunowners are not supertacticooluberninjas. Most of them are not particularly dedicated. So the Israeli Technique is perfect for them. That is what it was designed for, to address problems caused by little or no training. And it does so without handicapping the experienced shooter to any major degree.
Again we are back to context. For the dedicated gunhandler intimately familiar with his weapon and with deeply ingrained gunhandling skills, C3 makes no sense because it might slow him down in the extremely rare chance that he has a quick-draw or one-hand gunfight. For the typical gun owner, C3 can make sense because it gives an extra margin of safety for the very common, everyday administrative issues he will deal with thousands of times, and still allows him to be just as ready for almost all atttacks.
I would say that lack of training or practice would make C3 the worst choice for someone to carry. It might be great for teaching multiple people on different platforms, a single unified method of getting the gun into play, but for the neophyte/lazy gun owner, drawing and racking a slide and getting into the fight seems to be an awful lot to do, as opposed to just drawing and pulling the trigger (maybe taking off the safety if you have one). Less equals better in my opinion. A dedicated, practicing gunfighter would likely be more successful, more often in the the application of C3, but that same gunfighter will be slightly faster when all he has to do is draw and fire.
practical reasons that hinder the speed at which we can draw from concealment are most often as a result of local laws. If a person was to open carry would you advocate C3 as well or do you see it as being more suited to CCW?
I am a student of history, and I always like to refer to it when questions come up about how something works. Historically we have not seen any real problems with C3. In fact, quite the opposite, it has a pretty darned good record behind it in a wide variety of circumstances. So it seems that C3 has not been a bad choice for those with little training or those who practice little. In fact, as mentioned before, that has often been its primary reason for selection, that it provided the best combination of useability and safety for those with minimal training. And C3 has probably been carried as much or more in the open than CCW. It seems to work fine for either setting. FWIW, I don’t advocate C3 (or C1 for that matter). I point out that it is an option, no different than many other options, that the gun owner can choose from. I advocate each person looking into their situation and doing whatever works best for them.
Dave wrote: “If one’s speed meets a certain standard, why would it matter if that standard is reached in a different manner?”
I don’t teach to “a certain standard.” Being able to do your draw in 2 seconds is better than doing it in 3. Does that mean 2 will always be fast enough? No. So if you can get it down to 1.5, that’s better. Getting it down to 1 is better still. Do you reach a point of diminishing returns? Absolutely. Diminishing returns doesn’t mean the same thing as NO returns.
There are definitely other factors which affect draw speed. That’s a red herring. Whether factor-xyz affects draw speed has nothing to do with whether the disadvantages of “IC” are outweighed by its benefits, which ordinarily are listed as “safer” and “more universal.”
It’s also worth noting that, while C3 was considered perfectly fine for military use for many decades, the current war has demonstrated that when people need a pistol right now, having to rack it — and depending on both hands being free to do so if you’re going to accomplish it efficiently — isn’t worth the perceived increase in safety.
For people who are genuinely not safe enough to carry C1, what exactly are they going to do once they’ve racked the slide? Sounds to me like trouble waiting to happen. You’ve got someone who you’ve determined isn’t safe enough to remember his gun is loaded and treat it a such … then you expect him to fare well in a gunfight?
If someone chooses to carry chamber-empty, that’s his business. But I’m not going to concede that it’s a better choice or even an equally good choice. The proper response to “not skilled & safe enough to carry loaded” isn’t Israeli Carry, it’s more training.
Sorry if I sounded like I misinterpreted what you were saying David.
This is an excellent discussion and it’s nice to see it hasn’t denigrated into a flame war like it would’ve on so many forums.
What kind of historical evidence is there available to show when C3 has been beneficial or not as a carry option? Are there specific case studies done by the military, or files available for perusal? I’d love to read any of that if possible.
Todd writes:
>>Do you reach a point of diminishing returns? Absolutely. Diminishing returns doesn’t mean the same thing as NO returns.<>There are definitely other factors which affect draw speed. That’s a red herring. <>It’s also worth noting that, while C3 was considered perfectly fine for military use for many decades…<>For people who are genuinely not safe enough to carry C1, what exactly are they going to do once they’ve racked the slide? Sounds to me like trouble waiting to happen. You’ve got someone who you’ve determined isn’t safe enough to remember his gun is loaded and treat it a such … then you expect him to fare well in a gunfight?<<
I can look back over decades of actual use and say that it seems to have worked out fairly well. But we have come back to where we started years ago, with the lasers. IIRC, my suggestion was that people should have a pretty good knowledge of something if they are going to talk about how bad (or good) it is. Same thing here. Anyone that has had even the basics of instruction in the Israeli method will understand that is a non-issue. This isn’t the place to go through the whole training process, but all those “problems” are addressed in the technique. Remember the Israeli method is not a method of shooting a gun, it is part of a process of fighting with a gun. And you make an unfounded assumption, if I understood you correctly, that people who carry C3 do so because they are not safe enough to carry C1. While that might be true of some, IME it certainly doesn’t describe the majority of C3 carriers. Some of the best gunnies I know choose to carry C3.
>>But I’m not going to concede that it’s a better choice or even an equally good choice.<>The proper response to “not skilled & safe enough to carry loaded” isn’t Israeli Carry, it’s more training.<<
Again, there is that assumption about "not skilled & safe" popping up. I'm about as skilled and safe as anybody, and I have often found myself carrying C3 through choice, as I felt it addressed my situation at that time best. And "more training" is a bit of a copout, I have always felt. LE, military, firearms trainers, etc. have, on average, far more training than most, yet we regularly see negligent discharges, violation of safety rules, improper procedures, etc. displayed by those folks. Now, if those with lots of training keep messing up, is it fair to say to others "if you just get more training everything will be OK"? Or is it better to say "Hey there you folks with limited training, here is a viable option that you might want to consider for your situation"?
Boy, that one ssort of went through a MixMaster! Here is (hopefully) a cleaner version of the post (and Todd, please delete the scrambled version if you’d like):
Todd writes:
“Do you reach a point of diminishing returns? Absolutely. Diminishing returns doesn’t mean the same thing as NO returns.”
Of course not. But that is part of the whole issue here. Again, folks are focusing only on the rare high-speed gunfight segment of CCW, not the overall picture. We all compromise in this arena. Different people compromise in different ways. Why does one compromise create so much discussion while another compromise that leads to the same results is accepted as normal? Particularly fast speed of presentation doesn’t impact that many CCW situations, and if one looks at the instances where a fraction of a second difference in the speed of presentation matters it becomes almost non-existent. Given limited resources and diminishing returns, is it really an issue if Shooter A uses a method that works for 99.99% of the situations and Shooter B uses a method that works for 99.999%?
“There are definitely other factors which affect draw speed. That’s a red herring.”
No. If the argument is that C3 is a problem because it is slower than C1, then all the factors that effect draw speed must be considered because when all factors are included the assumption becomes less valid. If the argument in favor of C1 is that it is faster, then items that negate that speed or factor in to the speed of presentation must be considered.
“It’s also worth noting that, while C3 was considered perfectly fine for military use for many decades…”
Exactly. It was perfectly fine. And it is still perfectly fine today. There may be some things that have occurred that might make something else a little better, but that doesn’t mean the older method suddenly has become useless.
“For people who are genuinely not safe enough to carry C1, what exactly are they going to do once they’ve racked the slide? Sounds to me like trouble waiting to happen. You’ve got someone who you’ve determined isn’t safe enough to remember his gun is loaded and treat it a such … then you expect him to fare well in a gunfight?”
I can look back over decades of actual use and say that it seems to have worked out fairly well. But we have come back to where we started years ago, with the lasers. IIRC, my suggestion then was that people should have a pretty good knowledge of something if they are going to talk about how bad (or good) it is. Same thing here. Anyone that has had even the basics of instruction in the Israeli method will understand that is a non-issue. This isn’t the place to go through the whole training process, but all those “problems” are addressed in the technique. Remember the Israeli method is not a method of shooting a gun, it is part of a process of fighting with a gun. And you make an unfounded assumption, if I understood you correctly, that people who carry C3 do so because they are not safe enough to carry C1. While that might be true of some, IME it certainly doesn’t describe the majority of C3 carriers. Some of the best gunnies I know choose to carry C3.
“But I’m not going to concede that it’s a better choice or even an equally good choice.”
Good, because it is not. It is a different choice, and whether that difference is better or worse is based on what the situation is. Fortunately, in most situations it doesn’t matter much.
“The proper response to “not skilled & safe enough to carry loaded” isn’t Israeli Carry, it’s more training.”
Again, there is that assumption about “not skilled & safe” popping up. I’m about as skilled and safe as anybody, and I have often found myself carrying C3 through choice, as I felt it addressed my situation at that time best. And “more training” is a bit of a copout, I have always felt. LE, military, firearms trainers, etc. have, on average, far more training than most, yet we regularly see negligent discharges, violation of safety rules, improper procedures, etc. displayed by those folks. Now, if those with lots of training keep messing up, is it fair to say to others “if you just get more training everything will be OK”? Or is it better to say “Hey there you folks with limited training, here is a viable option that you might want to consider for your situation”?
No problem Rob, the internet is infamous for converting what seemed like perfectly clear communications to something else! The hisotrical evidence is just that, history. As I’ve said, C3 was the dominant method of carry for autoloaders for most of the 20th Century. Even in the U.S. most folks carried C3 until the 1970s. And even though there were alternatives to C3 (C1, revolvers, etc) many of the top firearms trainers of the day (Sykes, Fairbairn, Applegate, continued to promote C3 for autoloaders. Every military used it, and almost every LE organization that used autos mandated C3 carry. And even today there are still many organizations including military and LE, along with a lot of other folks, who are in some pretty tough areas of the world that still use C3 by choice. Now, one can assume that everyone out there was intentionally choosing a bad method that would hamper their success and increase the danger, or one can assume they were picking a method that they had found to work. Since nobody has ever been able to provide any evidence that the tecnique was ineffective, and it continues to be used, it would seem that history has shown that it works.
There are plenty of examples where C3 was used successfully all over the world for decades.
David: ” Why does one compromise create so much discussion while another compromise that leads to the same results is accepted as normal?”
I still think that’s a red herring. There are all sorts of things that affect highway safety, so why worry about air bags? Because regardless of those other things, having air bags equals better safety.
Comparing undefined “others” to something specific (IC) just doesn’t provide a basis for … well … comparison.
David: “And ‘more training’ is a bit of a copout,”
Generally, I agree with this statement. No one has infinite resources (time, money, ammo, etc.). But if the issue is one of familiarity and comfort (viz-a-vis safety), then getting adequate training certainly is not time consuming. The fact that even after training it’s possible to make mistakes doesn’t change the reality that training is a benefit and good training instills good safety habits. I’ve met all sorts of “trained” LEOs and CCWers who didn’t know enough about guns to fill a matchbook. Hell, last night at the range I saw a certified NRA instructor teaching a girl to shoot her SIG semiauto using a revolver one-thumb-on-each-side-of-the-gun grip.
I’d also have to disagree with the suggestion that we’re talking a 99.99 vs. 99.999 difference. I’ve seen an awful lot of police dashcam videos that would have turned out worse if the officer had a chamber-empty gun to start.
Not a single LE agency I’ve dealt with advocates or requiresCondition Three as a carry method on-duty.
In the days before drop safeties, etc., maybe there were more justifications for C3. But with modern firearms in the hands of someone with good safety habits, there’s just no compelling benefit I can see.
Lets not forget that a lot of those old military rules mandated a C3 carry for the rifle too. And even those that didn’t feel the pistol was really that important. The poor guys who had to carry the Hi Powers had to choose between flicking the safety off before a shot was fired, or C3. If I’d had old Canadian arsenal guns, I’d have probably gone with C3 as well. the safety on those old Hi Powers sucked.
From Todd: “I still think that’s a red herring.”
I still have to disagree. If the argument is “it slows you down” then one needs to look at all the other things that slow you down. The airbag is an intersting analogy, however. Not all cars have airbags, but they still function quite well as cars. People drive them regularly, they function just as well as cars with airbags, and so on. Here, let’s have a little test. You get your choice of two cars to drive around in on a regular basis. Car one is a new Chevy Aveo with an airbag. Car 2 is a pristine 1969 Jaguar XKE convertible without an airbag. Which do you pick? And sometimes the airbag is a bad thing, causing more damage/danger.
“Comparing undefined “others” to something specific (IC) just doesn’t provide a basis for … well … comparison.”
The others are not undiefined, they are global. Heck, flicking off a safety changes the speed. Position of holster changes the speed. EVERYTHING changes the speed when compared to anything else.
“But if the issue is one of familiarity and comfort (viz-a-vis safety), then getting adequate training certainly is not time consuming.”
One can get familiar and comfortable with C3 just as they can with C1. And that begs the issue of what would constitute adequate training, given the limited resources. If adequate training is being able to safely use a firearm in most situations, the Israeli draw has shown itself to be quite adequate.
“I’d also have to disagree with the suggestion that we’re talking a 99.99 vs. 99.999 difference. I’ve seen an awful lot of police dashcam videos that would have turned out worse if the officer had a chamber-empty gun to start.”
Would you like to compare those instances to the number of AD/NDs the police have had? But more importantly, I’ve have seen very few instances where it would have made a difference. Generally if the officer has time to draw h e has time to rack the slide. Certainly if he has time to get two hands on the gun he almost always has time to rack the slide.
Let’s look at this logically for a minute. Let’s say it takes 1.5 seconds for you draw and engage the BG. And let’s say racking the slide adds .2 seconds to the time.
Attack occurs within the 0.0-1.499 seconds, condition of carry does not matter. No time to draw and engage.
Attack occurs within the 1.7-infinity, condition of carry does not matter. Plenty of time to draw and rack and engage.
Only if the attack falls specifically within the 1.5-1.699 time frame will it make any difference (figured on presentation time only).
“Not a single LE agency I’ve dealt with advocates or requiresCondition Three as a carry method on-duty.”
Now that is a red herring! Most LE require/advocate holsters of high security level and open carry on a Sam Browne rig. Should we all use Level 3 holsters and carry openly on Sam Browne rigs? And more importantly, if LE agencies DID advocate/require C3, would that then mean it was a good method? Before you answer, keep in mind that most agencies did require C3 up to the 1970s, and on an international level some still do.
“…there’s just no compelling benefit I can see.”
And in your situation there probably isn’t any compelling benefit. Others have different situations and concerns, and for them the benefits can be more compelling. Each carry has benefits depending on the individual, their needs, their situation, and so on.
Good point Rob, and as I mentioned before (maybe on the other thread) I’ve got a friend who carries a Hi-Power in C3 for exactly that reason…he finds the racking of the slide to be easier and more reliable than hitting the safety. Again, different folks, different situations.
I’ve never understood why those guns were designed with such a poor safety setup.
It helps to remember the doctrine of the time, which was that the safety really didn’t matter that much because you carried the gun C3. Putting on the safety was a temporary measure to be used until the round in the chamber could be removed and the gun put back into carry mode. Many, if not most, autos developed in the first half of the century had very small/poorly designed safeties.
There’s more than one of these discussions going on – this is a good, reasonable one. I have been trained in the ICM (Israeli Combat Method) and David is quite right – it is part of a system, a way of thinking and moving.
Believe me, the Israelis are TOUGH and practical. For us dilettantes in America, this is an interesting discussion. In the virtual warzone of Israel, it’s about survival and arming and using most citizens, male or female.
This brings up the first point: training. The ICM was developed first and foremost to work effectively, using a method that could be quickly and easily taught to citizens at large. Think the American public. It is based on using the body/minds reactions to deadly threat. This includes stance, draw/rack (in one powerful forward motion using gross motor skills) to target. They even build in a slight (optional) pause before firing to insure safety in crowded areas. Basic movement is included and its mostly forward.
It is MUCH more thorough than you can imagine. The wonder of it all is that this method can be taught, used and retained in a remarkably short period of time. And it is safe.
Now let’s talk speed.
This whole discussion is based on a “study” by one guy, not really trained or active in ICM, who concluded a 0.2 second difference (slower), after his single test. A notable Israeli American trainer often works with LE and SWAT groups. He times them before the training using their conventional draw, then later, after the training, using the Israeli method. They are ususally surprised to find there is ususally no difference. And that is at the end of one training day!
Indeed, most experienced ICM practioners feel the Israeli draw is faster due to several factors. First, the C3 carry is inherently safe and practioners feel safe in moving more aggressively throughout the draw. Second, the Israeli draw is notably more agressive and powerful – as expected when the rack, by design, occurs as part of a powerful forward thrust to target.
This has been my experience. The draw must be seen to be believed. The safe condition of C3 only adds to the speed.
I would ask this: for those who so strongly rejected the ID based on the 0.2 second assumption, will you now consider a draw that is as fast, or faster?
Last is the “two hand” argument – the “surprise attack”. This is a bit forced. One of the best answers to this is provided by Mas Ayoob. His points are these:
1. If you are surprised, and especially if you are within arms length, you are already WAY behind the curve. Ayoob states to even attempt to draw at this juncture is useless and counterproductive.
2. In this situation, he feels your first reaction should be to deflect and/or disarm, then gain distance so that you can draw (either method).
I won’t go into the many rationales he offers, but you can trust they are convincing. I would add the following.
The Israeli’s often guard VIPS (or family). A protective arm sweep is built into the draw. A fact that outsiders wouldn’t know. And remember, BG’s are fully aware of CCW. Some gangs even train to disarm and disable their victims. They will go for your strong arm – and they may not be alone.
Your chances of being disarmed and shot with your own gun pose a real risk if you are so foolish as to draw at arm’s length.
The common CCW carrier is completely unprepared for such close combat, which is really more of a martial arts encounter, than a gun encounter. Comparisons to professionals are also forced – the pro’s train for close combat and are fully prepared with BUG’s, combat knives, spray or Taser, vests, comealongs, etc.
The rest of us are not and are ill prepared.
In sum, I WILL recommend the ICM as being as fast or faster, more effective and much, much safer.
Evela,
You must make a living teaching this crap because the average attack happens within 7 yards and the attacker is on you in less than 2 seconds. Miami Police have recorded almost have of their shooting involved encounters from an inside ready position, basically draw, cant, shoot. The support arm is actually used to block high with a body or hip girdle first shot. If the gun wasn’t chambered they would never have gotten the shot of. This is a technique taught to people issued a gun at 18 and given almost no training before sending them into service. It was created to reduce ND’s and not for better defense purposes,,,,,unless you mean defense from shooting themselves.
One more thing, Their are no police departments in north or south America that employ this technique.