You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Israeli carry effective ?
- Thread starter alizeefan
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
OK, I had to post here because the Israeli carry is what I do, and always have when carrying a 1911. Lock & load is not for me as I don't want to deal with a safety. That racking is SO easy. Havehn't had to use it but it's my way. Also I have a thing about having to eject a round later. The gun was meant to eject empties, in my opinion.
David Armstrong
Moderator
That may be the disagreed agreement?? One can say the same about chamber loaded, that "given its limitations is is fine so long as..."I agree it is effective, given its limitations, which is why I intially opined:
"It is fine so long as..."
The issue of effective is defined more by what the weapon is used for, not the chamber condition, and thus my point that historically we have seen chamber empty to be quite effective for the assigned task.
Denny Hansen
Staff Emeritus
alizeefan-
Are Airsoft pistols legal in Australia? If they are, buy one of the higher quality gas guns and you can practice drawing and firing in your home. No, it isn't live fire with a "real" gun, but it would be better than nothing.
Denny
Are Airsoft pistols legal in Australia? If they are, buy one of the higher quality gas guns and you can practice drawing and firing in your home. No, it isn't live fire with a "real" gun, but it would be better than nothing.
Denny
I tried to start another thread, but apparently a thread on "Israeli carry" and "loaded chamber limititons" have been deemed the same topic.
So, becasue I was so directed, I'll now attempt to divert this thread:
Someone please explain to me the limitation of a loaded chamber.
Thanks
So, becasue I was so directed, I'll now attempt to divert this thread:
Someone please explain to me the limitation of a loaded chamber.
Thanks
David Armstrong
Moderator
As mentioned before, it is situational. While the loaded chamber might not be a limitation for one person, it might be for another. That is one of the keys, IMO. The other, of course, is that it just doesn't matter much, chamber loaded or empty, in the real world of gun use. So I would preface any discussion with the initial statement that it be considered in that context. But for just a few common limitations real quick:
1. Many older handguns were not designed for and are not safe to carry with the chamber loaded, particularly some striker fired weapons.
2. Another situation where there can be a limitation might be the person whose lifestyle involves a high level of manipulation of the firearm. Let’s go into and out of a Federal Courthouse 4 or 5 times a day. Each time requires you to unload your firearm. Statistically, loading or unloading a firearm is when the chance of an AD/ND is highest. Also the regular recycling of the top rounds into and out of the chamber over and over can lead to bullet setback, which will further increase both the chance of malfunction and the potential of an overpressure round.
3. A limitation might come from the design of the firearm itself. Some firearms just don’t work that well for everyone in all modes. Two very specific and personal examples. I’ve got a friend who loves and carries an older Browning Hi-Power. However, he does not like the design of the safety and thus carries it chamber empty. He feels that racking the slide gives him a more reliable first shot than working the safety. I’m that way with a number of the Walther-based small autoloaders. Racking the slide gives me a better first shot than fighting through the atrocious DA first shot. One gets a more accurate and in many cases just as fast shot by chambering then firing SA.
4. Training can create a situation where there is a bit of a limitation. Even with modern well-designed firearms, there are far more AD/NDs than actual GG/BG shootouts. Thus for any situation where the shooter is not well-trained the odds of AD/ND exceed those of getting into a gunfight with the BG.
5. Finally, let's look at what I think is probably the most important limitation of all, personal comfort. Whether one likes to admit it or not, there are some people that are not and will not ever be comfortable carrying with a round in the chamber. Whether it be the result of their training (yes, large numbers of folks, both worldwide and in the U.S. have been trained to carry and use the gun from a chamber empty position)or their perceptions or their biases, there are a number of people that will not carry at all if they have to carry chamber loaded. From a personal defense position, I would suggest that the chamber empty carry is far better than not carrying at all.
Now let me ask you a question that nobody seems able or willing to answer: If chamber empty carry is such a problem and is so bad, why is it that for most of the 20th Century, when chamber empty was the most common way of carrying an autoloader in all areas (civilian, military, and LE) did we not see these problems everyone keeps bringing up?
1. Many older handguns were not designed for and are not safe to carry with the chamber loaded, particularly some striker fired weapons.
2. Another situation where there can be a limitation might be the person whose lifestyle involves a high level of manipulation of the firearm. Let’s go into and out of a Federal Courthouse 4 or 5 times a day. Each time requires you to unload your firearm. Statistically, loading or unloading a firearm is when the chance of an AD/ND is highest. Also the regular recycling of the top rounds into and out of the chamber over and over can lead to bullet setback, which will further increase both the chance of malfunction and the potential of an overpressure round.
3. A limitation might come from the design of the firearm itself. Some firearms just don’t work that well for everyone in all modes. Two very specific and personal examples. I’ve got a friend who loves and carries an older Browning Hi-Power. However, he does not like the design of the safety and thus carries it chamber empty. He feels that racking the slide gives him a more reliable first shot than working the safety. I’m that way with a number of the Walther-based small autoloaders. Racking the slide gives me a better first shot than fighting through the atrocious DA first shot. One gets a more accurate and in many cases just as fast shot by chambering then firing SA.
4. Training can create a situation where there is a bit of a limitation. Even with modern well-designed firearms, there are far more AD/NDs than actual GG/BG shootouts. Thus for any situation where the shooter is not well-trained the odds of AD/ND exceed those of getting into a gunfight with the BG.
5. Finally, let's look at what I think is probably the most important limitation of all, personal comfort. Whether one likes to admit it or not, there are some people that are not and will not ever be comfortable carrying with a round in the chamber. Whether it be the result of their training (yes, large numbers of folks, both worldwide and in the U.S. have been trained to carry and use the gun from a chamber empty position)or their perceptions or their biases, there are a number of people that will not carry at all if they have to carry chamber loaded. From a personal defense position, I would suggest that the chamber empty carry is far better than not carrying at all.
Now let me ask you a question that nobody seems able or willing to answer: If chamber empty carry is such a problem and is so bad, why is it that for most of the 20th Century, when chamber empty was the most common way of carrying an autoloader in all areas (civilian, military, and LE) did we not see these problems everyone keeps bringing up?
Because during this time period DA revolvers were, by far, the most common choice for LE and self-defense. The military used autopistols, but not as primary weapons. Drawing and chambering a round in an autopistol is still much faster than trying to bum some extra rifle rounds from your buddy when you run dry or field stripping your rifle to get it running again.why is it that for most of the 20th Century, when chamber empty was the most common way of carrying an autoloader in all areas (civilian, military, and LE) did we not see these problems everyone keeps bringing up?
When autopistols really began to come into favor in LE they were almost invariably carried chamber loaded.
David Armstrong:
Conversely...If 20th Century chamber empty carry were such a good idea, why are no serious combatants using it in the 21st Century?
BTW, forget the Israeli public. I'm a great admirer of the people and military of Israel, but I tried the "Israeli Military Prowess Koolaid" years ago and lost the taste. The Israelis I've worked around (military only) carried Condition "Two" (DA/SA; chambered, decocked).
Other considerations to both answer your latest question and previous comments:
1. Most people during the 20th Century carried revolvers…generally more powerful rounds and (oh yeah)…faster to employ than C3, especially prior to WWII.
2. Most folks carrying semi-autos during the 20th Century were ill trained by their organizations (which also mandated Condition 3 carry as a solution to a lack of training)
3. Very few semi-autos fielded en masse during the 20th Century had decent combat ergonomics as far as safety mechanisms were concerned (1911A1, P-35, and P-38 come to mind as exceptions)
4. For a large part of the 20th Century, Officers carried swagger sticks, troops advanced exposed and in line into beaten zones, troops walked at a measured pace into artillery fire, and almost everyone believed bayonets ruled supreme. The bladed dueling stance, flap holsters, and one-handed target pistol firing were also favored. Institutionalized stupidity is not really that admirable…things change.
5. Most folks carrying any handgun in past conflicts or law enforcement duty never used them in anger; carry condition was (ultimately) irrelevant. Barney Fife managed to do OK…but we don’t emulate him.
6. Many folks who did carry C3 failed to survive, but their comrades did and passed on the hard lesson learned – Darwinism at work; chamber empty carry went the way of swords and for some of the same reasons.
7. In the American military, C4 carry was mandated for most troops for most of the 20th Century…chamber empty, no magazine in pistol or rifle…especially while on guard duty. MPs manning gates and conducting police functions got to use C3…oh boy...yet another instance of ill-trained troops recognized as such by nervous commanders (who mandated the C3 solution that allowed them to sleep semi-soundly at night).
8. Most folks who use pistols in 21st Century combat and law enforcement DON’T use C3. Modern police departments in the US (and Western Europe) don’t use C3. My neighbors in Germany were Polizei for Baden-Wurttemberg…they didn’t use it and neither did the rest of the national police force…anywhere.
The SAS don’t today and didn’t in the mid-70’s (sorry, I’m just going to have to trust my first person observations at war, on training ranges, and operational deployments). Maybe you knew HQ folks that mandated empty carry in the office.
US Army Special Forces (my unit) do not use Condition 3. USN NSWG doesn’t. USAF AFSOF doesn’t. MARSOC does not. The 75th Infantry Regiment doesn’t. The Atlanta PD doesn’t. The Colorado Springs PD doesn’t. The WV State Police don’t. The Polish GROM doesn’t. The El Paso, Texas PD doesn’t. The German GSG-9 and KSK don’t. French GIGN doesn’t. The FBI and FBI HRT don’t. LAPD and LAPD SWAT don’t. The Kentucky State Police don’t. PSDs such as Blackwater, Triple Canopy, and Executive Outcomes don’t. ICE doesn’t. State Department PSDs don’t. The Danish Jaegers don’t. The US Air Marshalls don’t. Do you start to see a pattern?
9. US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan typically carry Condition 4 (no magazine inserted / no round in chamber) for both pistol and rifle while inside the safety of their own wire. It's mandated. During periods of heightened threat or when crossing the wire, rounds are chambered and weapons are on safe (Condition 1). Condition 3 carry? Not (at least not 5 weeks ago when I left Iraq). Are there those who carry chamber empty as an individual choice (due to lack of confidence in their weapon handling skills). Sure. But, somewhere out there I can show you a real-life Sheriff Andy Taylor not carrying anything.
10. IMHO, if a man is not comfortable with a round up the spout (assuming a modern weapon designed to safely carry such), he has a LOT more training to do before he starts referring to himself as a “pistolero”. Alternatively, he should probably consider carry of revolvers or DA/SA semi-autos. Safe Action pistols in amateur hands make me nervous. If I were in charge of a large and marginally trained organization that issued Glocks, I’d mandate C3 carry too.
11. NightHawk claims to practice extensively (dry and hot) with this technique weekly. Considering the chosen manner of carry, I certainly hope so. I commend him for that dedication to his method of carry, but question the wisdom of giving up the singular advantage (speed and simplicity of presentation) provided by carrying his chosen Glock. Draw weapon, pull trigger, bang. Instead he worries about being a danger:
“…many hundreds of times when others around me might have been placed at risk by my fully-charged pistol. (Including several other gunmen with less than perfect weapon handling skills.)”
WTF?! Is this a bad joke? Why should anyone be at risk from a well trained “Pistolero” due to Condition 1?
12. NightHawk and David Armstrong: While you both provide articulate written defense of your preferred technique, neither of you have ever shot and killed anyone. Nor engaged in live “CQB”. Your words speak volumes about what you don’t know (like the high likelihood that you will suffer multiple bone shattering wounds to one or both of your upper limbs). Give the tactical posturing a rest.
13. The fact that you feel comfortable with C3 (for perfectly legitimate personal reasons) does not mean that it is a superior or particularly effective way to carry. If it works for you, that’s great.
14. alizeefan: In answer to your original post and follow up questions…Yes, Condition Three carry is viable (barely, and not smart if you are going to deliberately inhabit the “x”). Lack of provided body armor is even worse. You will be guarding other peoples’ insured money…is it worth your life? Do your employers really seem to care about your training or survival. I don’t think so.
If I’ve offended anyone…tough.
If chamber empty carry is such a problem and is so bad, why is it that for most of the 20th Century, when chamber empty was the most common way of carrying an autoloader in all areas (civilian, military, and LE) did we not see these problems everyone keeps bringing up?
Conversely...If 20th Century chamber empty carry were such a good idea, why are no serious combatants using it in the 21st Century?
BTW, forget the Israeli public. I'm a great admirer of the people and military of Israel, but I tried the "Israeli Military Prowess Koolaid" years ago and lost the taste. The Israelis I've worked around (military only) carried Condition "Two" (DA/SA; chambered, decocked).
Other considerations to both answer your latest question and previous comments:
1. Most people during the 20th Century carried revolvers…generally more powerful rounds and (oh yeah)…faster to employ than C3, especially prior to WWII.
2. Most folks carrying semi-autos during the 20th Century were ill trained by their organizations (which also mandated Condition 3 carry as a solution to a lack of training)
3. Very few semi-autos fielded en masse during the 20th Century had decent combat ergonomics as far as safety mechanisms were concerned (1911A1, P-35, and P-38 come to mind as exceptions)
4. For a large part of the 20th Century, Officers carried swagger sticks, troops advanced exposed and in line into beaten zones, troops walked at a measured pace into artillery fire, and almost everyone believed bayonets ruled supreme. The bladed dueling stance, flap holsters, and one-handed target pistol firing were also favored. Institutionalized stupidity is not really that admirable…things change.
5. Most folks carrying any handgun in past conflicts or law enforcement duty never used them in anger; carry condition was (ultimately) irrelevant. Barney Fife managed to do OK…but we don’t emulate him.
6. Many folks who did carry C3 failed to survive, but their comrades did and passed on the hard lesson learned – Darwinism at work; chamber empty carry went the way of swords and for some of the same reasons.
7. In the American military, C4 carry was mandated for most troops for most of the 20th Century…chamber empty, no magazine in pistol or rifle…especially while on guard duty. MPs manning gates and conducting police functions got to use C3…oh boy...yet another instance of ill-trained troops recognized as such by nervous commanders (who mandated the C3 solution that allowed them to sleep semi-soundly at night).
8. Most folks who use pistols in 21st Century combat and law enforcement DON’T use C3. Modern police departments in the US (and Western Europe) don’t use C3. My neighbors in Germany were Polizei for Baden-Wurttemberg…they didn’t use it and neither did the rest of the national police force…anywhere.
The SAS don’t today and didn’t in the mid-70’s (sorry, I’m just going to have to trust my first person observations at war, on training ranges, and operational deployments). Maybe you knew HQ folks that mandated empty carry in the office.
US Army Special Forces (my unit) do not use Condition 3. USN NSWG doesn’t. USAF AFSOF doesn’t. MARSOC does not. The 75th Infantry Regiment doesn’t. The Atlanta PD doesn’t. The Colorado Springs PD doesn’t. The WV State Police don’t. The Polish GROM doesn’t. The El Paso, Texas PD doesn’t. The German GSG-9 and KSK don’t. French GIGN doesn’t. The FBI and FBI HRT don’t. LAPD and LAPD SWAT don’t. The Kentucky State Police don’t. PSDs such as Blackwater, Triple Canopy, and Executive Outcomes don’t. ICE doesn’t. State Department PSDs don’t. The Danish Jaegers don’t. The US Air Marshalls don’t. Do you start to see a pattern?
9. US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan typically carry Condition 4 (no magazine inserted / no round in chamber) for both pistol and rifle while inside the safety of their own wire. It's mandated. During periods of heightened threat or when crossing the wire, rounds are chambered and weapons are on safe (Condition 1). Condition 3 carry? Not (at least not 5 weeks ago when I left Iraq). Are there those who carry chamber empty as an individual choice (due to lack of confidence in their weapon handling skills). Sure. But, somewhere out there I can show you a real-life Sheriff Andy Taylor not carrying anything.
10. IMHO, if a man is not comfortable with a round up the spout (assuming a modern weapon designed to safely carry such), he has a LOT more training to do before he starts referring to himself as a “pistolero”. Alternatively, he should probably consider carry of revolvers or DA/SA semi-autos. Safe Action pistols in amateur hands make me nervous. If I were in charge of a large and marginally trained organization that issued Glocks, I’d mandate C3 carry too.
11. NightHawk claims to practice extensively (dry and hot) with this technique weekly. Considering the chosen manner of carry, I certainly hope so. I commend him for that dedication to his method of carry, but question the wisdom of giving up the singular advantage (speed and simplicity of presentation) provided by carrying his chosen Glock. Draw weapon, pull trigger, bang. Instead he worries about being a danger:
“…many hundreds of times when others around me might have been placed at risk by my fully-charged pistol. (Including several other gunmen with less than perfect weapon handling skills.)”
WTF?! Is this a bad joke? Why should anyone be at risk from a well trained “Pistolero” due to Condition 1?
12. NightHawk and David Armstrong: While you both provide articulate written defense of your preferred technique, neither of you have ever shot and killed anyone. Nor engaged in live “CQB”. Your words speak volumes about what you don’t know (like the high likelihood that you will suffer multiple bone shattering wounds to one or both of your upper limbs). Give the tactical posturing a rest.
13. The fact that you feel comfortable with C3 (for perfectly legitimate personal reasons) does not mean that it is a superior or particularly effective way to carry. If it works for you, that’s great.
14. alizeefan: In answer to your original post and follow up questions…Yes, Condition Three carry is viable (barely, and not smart if you are going to deliberately inhabit the “x”). Lack of provided body armor is even worse. You will be guarding other peoples’ insured money…is it worth your life? Do your employers really seem to care about your training or survival. I don’t think so.
If I’ve offended anyone…tough.
Last edited:
David Armstrong
Moderator
I think that skirts the issue. Yes, the revolver was the dominant handgun, bu tthere were a lot of autoloaders out there and they were being carried chamber empty.Because during this time period DA revolvers were, by far, the most common choice for LE and self-defense.
Only in the U.S. Internationally the autoloader was accepted by LE long before the U.S. and was (and in many areas still is) carried chamber empty. Again, without any of these alleged problems cropping up.When autopistols really began to come into favor in LE they were almost invariably carried chamber loaded.
I was taught:
Condition 1 = 1 second to kill
condition 2 = 2 seconds to kill
condition 3 = 3 seconds to kill
Have to decide for yourself what you need for SD and train for that level. Who cares what anyone else does. Thisis about your self defense not someone else. Do what makes you comfy and train, train train. Practise the draw, rack, fire until you can do so in 3 seconds. Try it and have your wife time ya. You may be surprised at how long it really takes. Petition non carry places to allow carry or we will be facing a lot more mall incidents I fear.
Condition 1 = 1 second to kill
condition 2 = 2 seconds to kill
condition 3 = 3 seconds to kill
Have to decide for yourself what you need for SD and train for that level. Who cares what anyone else does. Thisis about your self defense not someone else. Do what makes you comfy and train, train train. Practise the draw, rack, fire until you can do so in 3 seconds. Try it and have your wife time ya. You may be surprised at how long it really takes. Petition non carry places to allow carry or we will be facing a lot more mall incidents I fear.
David Armstrong
Moderator
Why? They are a good example of the issue. Why should one forget those elements that tend to support a position?BTW, forget the Israeli public.
See above. Lots of autolaoders carried, and carried chamber empty. No significant problems.1. Most people during the 20th Century carried revolvers…generally more powerful rounds and (oh yeah)…faster to employ than C3, especially prior to WWII.
Most folks carrying in the 21st Century are not well trained either.2. Most folks carrying semi-autos during the 20th Century were ill trained by their organizations
So you would agree that the ergonomics issue is a valid one for chamber empty carry?3. Very few semi-autos fielded en masse during the 20th Century had decent combat ergonomics as far as safety mechanisms were concerned
Not sure what any of that has to do with CCW, LE, and the issues at hand.. For a large part of the 20th Century, Officers carried swagger sticks....
None of that has changed.5. Most folks carrying any handgun in past conflicts or law enforcement duty never used them in anger; carry condition was (ultimately) irrelevant.
Two problems there. First, many folks who carried C1 also failed to survive, and chamber empty did not go the way of the sword. It is still practiced and/or mandated by many, including large segments of the U.S. military.6. Many folks who did carry C3 failed to survive, but their comrades did and passed on the hard lesson learned – Darwinism at work; chamber empty carry went the way of swords and for some of the same reasons.
And the training is not that much better, whether it be troops or civilians.yet another instance of ill-trained troops recognized as such by nervous commanders
Again, so what? The issue is not what is used by most, the question is if C3 versus C1 has a significant impact on survival chances.Most folks who use pistols in 21st Century combat and law enforcement DON’T use C3.
Equally sorry, but I'm also going to trust my first person observations of when I was training with and working alongside SAS members in the 1970s when they did carry C3 and almost to a man considerd C1 to be "playing cowboy."The SAS don’t today and didn’t in the mid-70’s (sorry, I’m just going to have to trust my first person observations at war, on training ranges, and operational deployments).
Yes. Do you see that the pattern is irrelevant to the issue? The issue is really simple, and all this obfuscating doesn't change it at all.Do you start to see a pattern?
Exactly as I've said, different solutions for different situations.US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan typically carry Condition 4 (no magazine inserted / no round in chamber) for both pistol and rifle while inside the safety of their own wire. It's mandated. During periods of heightened threat or when crossing the wire, rounds are chambered and weapons are on safe (Condition 1)
Because these well trained pistoleros regularly have AD/ND events that could have been prevented with C3 carry. See, there is a lot more to the issue than just the gunfight.WTF?! Is this a bad joke? Why should anyone be at risk from a well trained “Pistolero” due to Condition 1?
I can't speak for Nighthawk, but I can speak for myself, and I would suggest you find out the facts before you go making statements like that. You see, I have BTDT, and more than once. I have engaged in live CQB, was doing it before CQB became a common term, and I'm going to make a guess that I was doing it while you were still making messes in your diapers. Given your comments I would question if you have any experience in defensive gun use and tactical considerations outside of the military? While the military is a great organization, lots of what goes on there is of limited applicability to non-military situations and issues.NightHawk and David Armstrong: While you both provide articulate written defense of your preferred technique, neither of you have ever shot and killed anyone. Nor engaged in live “CQB”.
Never said it was superior or effective, just as C1 is not superior or effective, in and of itself. Superior and effective is defined by need, and what makes C3 superior and effective for one person or situation might make C1 superior and effective for another person or another situation.The fact that you feel comfortable with C3 (for perfectly legitimate personal reasons) does not mean that it is a superior or particularly effective way to carry. If it works for you, that’s great.
mikejonestkd
New member
The OP question/ query was " is the so called israeli method of racking the slide on the draw a viable solution in a real world incident. "
as several people have replied ( most recently David Armstrong )
The answer is still ' Yes ' for some, but not universally for everyone.
If I may quote from other posts:
"Never said it was superior or effective, just as C1 is not superior or effective, in and of itself. Superior and effective is defined by need, and what makes C3 superior and effective for one person or situation might make C1 superior and effective for another person or another situation."
Hopefully this question has been answered by now.....
Hopefully.
as several people have replied ( most recently David Armstrong )
The answer is still ' Yes ' for some, but not universally for everyone.
If I may quote from other posts:
"Never said it was superior or effective, just as C1 is not superior or effective, in and of itself. Superior and effective is defined by need, and what makes C3 superior and effective for one person or situation might make C1 superior and effective for another person or another situation."
Hopefully this question has been answered by now.....
Hopefully.
David Armstrong
Moderator
If it is taking 2 seconds to rack the slide, there is a problem that goes far beyond any discussion regarding chamber condition, IMO.Condition 1 = 1 second to kill
condition 2 = 2 seconds to kill
condition 3 = 3 seconds to kill
A clear cut application of the "golden rule" here. They that has the gold gets to make the rules. You want a job. They have a job. Since they're paying you, you get to either obey the rules, or don't take the job.
When you consier the (1) very low probability that you'll need the weapon at all, and (2) the even lower probabality that having an empty chamber would make any difference at all, I know what I'd do.
On the other hand, the probably that you will be unemployed if you don't take the job is pretty high. At least in regards to THAT job. There may be other possibilities.
Seems simple to me really.
When you consier the (1) very low probability that you'll need the weapon at all, and (2) the even lower probabality that having an empty chamber would make any difference at all, I know what I'd do.
On the other hand, the probably that you will be unemployed if you don't take the job is pretty high. At least in regards to THAT job. There may be other possibilities.
Seems simple to me really.
I still would like to see a cite for this.Yes, the revolver was the dominant handgun, bu tthere were a lot of autoloaders out there and they were being carried chamber empty.
And this.Internationally the autoloader was accepted by LE long before the U.S. and was (and in many areas still is) carried chamber empty.
Denny Hansen
Staff Emeritus
Both chamber loaded/empty chamber advocates have posted enough for allizeefan to make up his own mind. This one has run its course.
Denny
Denny
- Status
- Not open for further replies.