Israeli Carry

Status
Not open for further replies.
Posted by falnovice:I think it is really worth noting that the Israeli method was not developed to be the end-all be-all of concealed carry/defensive pistol techniques. It came about, as explained to me by an Israeli, because of a plethora of difference pistol types with different controls. ...
The other point I believe is worth stressing is that this in NOT a development for concealed carry safety in the civilian world. They were not envisioning all of these scenarios with one handed child carrying or being accosted by muggers. This was for real COMBAT. For responding to a gunman or terrorist. For use in actual war. This is not to remove the considerations for one hand use or previous injury, but to illustrate that the quick draw and getting the first round on target as fast as humanly possible was not the highest priority. These things rarely happen in full scale gunfights and are more commonly seen in the defensive CCW scenarios.
...
It is only when we make this into a CCW/self defense event that the differences show.
Click to expand...
(Emphasis added)

Excellent points.

Combat operatives, and law enforcement officers for that matter, have a lot more latitude in deciding when to draw a firearm than do armed civilians. Where I live, a civilian may not "exhibit" a firearm in a "threatening" or "dangerous" manner unless he is engaged in a lawful act of self defense. I believe that to be true in all states except Minnesota and Texas.

That means that the defender has a need to be able to draw and fire much more quickly that someone who has the option to have the pistol in hand during a combat operation.

A friend who carried a Model 1911 in Viet Nam said that they carried there weapons in Condition 3 while they were within secure compounds, but that they carried them in Condition 1 while outside of their compounds.
 
BlueTrain Quote.


I agree; I've never heard of an accident with a Glock.

I take it you are joking.

Check the Internet their are plenty.
 
ORM

"a safety is a mechanical device, and mechanical devices are known to fail. Never trust a safety."
Click to expand...

That is an old cliche that get disproved every day. Especially if you drive or fly on a regular basis.
 
Glenn E. Meyer Quote.

1. Unchambered - if you are scared of your gun, don't carry it.

As said in earlier posts their are lots of reason some people might choose to carry their gun in different conditions. None of them being that they are scared.

I must say i am surprised at this view coming form a member of staff you are saying that unless you carry a gun in con 1 don't carry one.
 
That is an old cliche that get disproved every day. Especially if you drive or fly on a regular basis.
Click to expand...

that's not even remotely close to being accurate.

Planes and cars fail all the time. Talk to the people in NYC that had a jet engine fall into their backyard. Or the guy down here that had to land on I95 when his plane failed. Or the people with Toyotas that had the acceleration issues.
 
All your examples are anecdotal and do not prove the rule. The implications was to rely on the notion that safety devices WILL eventually fail. Build enough safety devices and yes, a number will fail. Which is extremely rare. So, my point is: safety devices are in general reliable and not prone to failure. Carrying with a safety "on" (Condition 1) is safe and reliable.
 
Posted by OldMarksman: That means that the defender has a need to be able to draw and fire much more quickly that someone who has the option to have the pistol in hand during a combat operation.
Click to expand...

That is a much cleaner way of saying what I was trying to get across. Thanks. :)

For the CCW civilian self defense role the draw can and most likely will be very important.
For the active combat personel the draw is almost a non-issue.

I feel that for CCW Condition one makes a lot more sense. But I don't feel there is a lot of difference in most scenarios between that and Condition three.
Do what you like, but train train train.
 
that's not even remotely close to being accurate.
Click to expand...

While things can and do fail, the chance than more than one would fail to the point that it became dangerous is basically impossible. A person is more likely to get hit by a meteor while walking down the street than to have a gun just "go off" because of the failure of multiple safeties.

Take Glock for instance, the one I know best.

The trigger will not move unless the trigger safety is depressed.

The striker cannot even touch the primer unless the firing pin safety is physically lifted out of the way by the trigger.

The striker itself is not fully cocked until right before the cruciform (sear) is pushed out of the way by the connector. (Some rounds will go off with very little impact force, so I wouldn't rely on this)

The cruciform is locked into a notch that prevents it from moving any direction except backwards until the point the connector drives it under the tail of the striker.

Most other handguns out there have similar safety devices built in and that doesn't even count those that have manual safeties as well.

Now if a person intentionally defeats any of these safety devices or they are worn to the point of being non functional, then yes, there is a potential.

Or the people with Toyotas that had the acceleration issues.
Click to expand...

I don't think I would use that as an example. Having a vehicle that moves forward when the acclerator is hit is generally considered a design feature. ;):D
 
ORM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"a safety is a mechanical device, and mechanical devices are known to fail. Never trust a safety."
Click to expand...

That is an old cliche that get disproved every day. Especially if you drive or fly on a regular basis.
Click to expand...

Actually I think if you fly, or drive a lot the point is well proven. With time I think all mechanical things fail ... be it airplane, automobile, refrigerator, washing machine, ....
 
Manta - it is a reasoned opinion that if one is scared of carrying a firearm in the most efficacious manner for its use - then you should not carry that firearm.

If you are scared that you cannot correctly handle the gun because of its mechanical attributes or those of the manner you carry the gun, then you should not carry that firearm or use that manner of carry.

I'm surprised that you don't understand that and that staff should agree with your analysis of the world.
 
Harking back to the original question, we're actually talking about changing minds here. This entails good communication, which means that you have to couch your arguments in a way that the other party is likely to respond to; if you really want them to change, find what the real reason is and find a way to help them overcome that reason.

You obviously know your friends better than I do, but how about suggesting they carry cocked and locked on an empty chamber for awhile? This would be just as safe as condition 3 as far as NDs are concerned, and would also demonstrate to them how often an ND would occur were they to carry C&L.
 
Manta - it is a reasoned opinion that if one is scared of carrying a firearm in the most efficacious manner for its use - then you should not carry that firearm.

If you are scared that you cannot correctly handle the gun because of its mechanical attributes or those of the manner you carry the gun, then you should not carry that firearm or use that manner of carry.

I'm surprised that you don't understand that and that staff should agree with your analysis of the world.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
Click to expand...

Hmmm. That's not very polite. You and Tom Servo need to agree on which way this discussion is supposed to go.
 
One should understand what politeness means.

I state again that one reason folks argue for unchambered carry is that they are not confident (or scared) that they would very prone to ND the gun.

I find that view not to be sensible as they would then carry in a nonoptimal manner rather than dealing with this problem.

I would not suggest that someone ride a motorcycle they could not handle with confidence, for example. If they are scared of it, they need to remedy that situation.

Disagreement is not a violation of politeness.
 
Where I live, a civilian may not "exhibit" a firearm in a "threatening" or "dangerous" manner unless he is engaged in a lawful act of self defense. I believe that to be true in all states except Minnesota and Texas.
Click to expand...
In the case of TX, this is not true. It is a violation of TX Penal Code section 42.01(8).
Sec. 42.01. DISORDERLY CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly:

[Sections 1 through 7 omitted]

(8) displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm;...
Click to expand...
A later provision of the statute exempts the legal use of deadly force against persons and animals.

Contrary to popular belief, TX is NOT the most gun-friendly state as it relates to legal open display, carry, and use of firearms. That said, the deadly force statutes ARE relatively relaxed, and include a unique (and controversial) provision allowing a private citizen to shoot a fleeing thief, albeit only under certain strict circumstances.
 
Glenn E. Meyer Quote.


I'm surprised that you don't understand that and that staff should agree with your analysis of the worldIf you are scared that you cannot correctly handle the gun because of its mechanical attributes or those of the manner you carry the gun, then you should not carry that firearm or use that manner of carry.


I would be more surprised if staff did agree with me. :)
I would agree with most of an earlier post below.




I feel that anyone who says “Condition 1 C&L is the way I do it and anybody who can’t or won’t carry in condition 1 C&L is a fool” - has just shown himself/herself as a fool.
There are many factors that come into play on why people purchase guns and how they decide they want to deploy them. Factors such as:

Training – Not all gun owners have the same desire to learn, practice and train.
Physical abilities – Not everyone has the same hand strength, hand size and conditioning.
Children – Some parents feel that the only way THEY feel safe having a gun in the home is to have it locked away in a gun-safe with a keypad.
Safety – we all live in different areas and lead different lives.

As adults, we all have to make daily decisions and weigh the pros and cons to each choice we make. It’s my opinion that nobody has the right to tell a parent, or any other adult, what he/she should or should not do with their firearm in their home with their children.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What you are saying then is that anyone on this forum or anywhere for that mater that chooses to carry in a different way than the way you say is correct shouldn't be carrying a firearm, fair enough. PS. perhaps people shouldn't be allowed a firearm unless they have compulsory training and must carry in con-1.
 
Last edited:
I believe that to be true in all states except Minnesota and Texas.
Click to expand...
In those states, if the use of force is lawful, it is permissible to draw a firearm for the purpose of creating an apprehension that deadly force will be used if necessary. That's Texas wording, but I think the gist is the same in MN.

Arizona has a "defensive display" provision, but it does not permit the actual drawing of a firearm unless deadly force is justified.
 
BlueTrain said:
...What everyone disagrees about is what the optimal way to carry a handgun is.
Click to expand...
Not exactly. It seems that pretty much all the major trainers and schools teach that the most efficient way to carry a handgun for self defense is in a well designed holster worn dominant side at the hip and with a round in the chamber. Specialized applications (e. g., a particularly need for deep concealment or having to sit for long periods) might warrant consideration of other forms of carry, but based on my training experience, dominant side, holstered, waist carry with a loaded chamber is pretty much the "gold standard" among the top trainers.

Some people choose to carry their guns for self defense without a chambered round. While they may be free to make that choice, that doesn't mean that their choice, or their reasons for it, aren't subject to being questioned.
 
So if you are confident (aka "not scared"), then logically, would the absolute best way to carry be "cocked and unlocked" since that would be the most efficient motion and it takes any issue with forgetting to switch off the safety or a failure of the safety out of the question...?
 
Pretty much most of the people thought invading Iraq was a good idea ... just because most of the people do, or believe one thing, does not make it either correct, accurate, or the 'Right' thing to do. One of my thoughts is: it is more selfish to carry in a cocked and locked configuration, Level 1, whereas it is more beneficial to the greater good to carry in Level 3. In one case a person is thinking of them-self, in the other the person is thinking of the welfare of others.

A doctor is under oath to: "... prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone." Does this mean the doctor is afraid to practice medicine if he is not sure the regimen will heal the patient ?

I am not sure that cocked and locked is a safe way to carry a pistol, so I don't. So I carry a revolver, or pistol that is double action.

Do what feels comfortable with you. As with most things, different strokes for different folks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top