The one advantage is that if you deal with 1) weapons with difficult to manipulate safeties or 2) various weapons with different operating characteristics (DA vs SA, safeties in diff. locations, etc), then keeping all weapons in Condition 3 and running them that way is expedient. That's why the Israelis went to the technique. Those situations no longer are in effect (they've standardized weapons), they have largely abandoned Condition 3 carry.
The Israeli way...
- Thread starter P-35HP
- Start date
- Status
The one advantage is that if you deal with 1) weapons with difficult to manipulate safeties or 2) various weapons with different operating characteristics (DA vs SA, safeties in diff. locations, etc), then keeping all weapons in Condition 3 and running them that way is expedient. That's why the Israelis went to the technique. Those situations no longer are in effect (they've standardized weapons), they have largely abandoned Condition 3 carry.
Frank Ettin
Administrator
And I agree with M1911. To help you decide if my opinion can be considered educated:
[1] I've trained at Gunsite, in both handgun and rifle. I've also had training with the Walt Marshall's Advanced Weapons and Tactics group and one class with Louis Awerbuck.
[2] I've competed in IPSC (Limited Division). I was a USPSA certified range officer (but let my certification lapse).
[3] I'm an NRA certified instructor in Basic Handgun, Personal Protection Inside the Home and Personal Protection Outside the Home.
[4] My handgun of choice has always been the 1911. All my formal training has been with the 1911, and in all my handgun competition I've used a 1911.
[1] I've trained at Gunsite, in both handgun and rifle. I've also had training with the Walt Marshall's Advanced Weapons and Tactics group and one class with Louis Awerbuck.
[2] I've competed in IPSC (Limited Division). I was a USPSA certified range officer (but let my certification lapse).
[3] I'm an NRA certified instructor in Basic Handgun, Personal Protection Inside the Home and Personal Protection Outside the Home.
[4] My handgun of choice has always been the 1911. All my formal training has been with the 1911, and in all my handgun competition I've used a 1911.
P-35HP: I see from your profile that you are in NH. So head over to Sigarms Academy or Lethal Force Institute and take a class. Sigarms Academy has a cheap 4-hour introduction to concealed carry. That will teach you how to draw and reholster. Their 2-day class would be better, of course.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
The issue has been asked and answered 1000s of time by now.
The core is:
1. Do you fear an ND?
2. Do you fear not being able to get the gun in operation fast enough?
#1 is taken care of by training. If you fear the gun you carry due to its mechanics or your lack of training/ability, then don't carry it. Very simple.
#2 - one would have to have a very, very large data set from the real world to come up with a distribution of handgun incidents that would indicate a disadvantage for unchambered carry. But the incidents have to be broken down to their specifics. Arguing the mean or modal action in multifactor situations is stupid but typical of some gun usage arguments. The mean is NOT guaranteed to occur. This is a stupid conclusion made time and again in gun discussions. You need to plan for a reasonable range of possibilities.
Unchambered carry has risks in some reasonable scenarios that would seem to outweigh the ND risk for those who have trained well. If you haven't trained with your gun then you are a liability and shouldn't carry.
That's about all there is in thousands of posts, endless posts, over and over.
As pointed out the Israeli example is thrown up by folks with little analytic skill as a cliche to prove their point. If you want to analyze such, you need training from various research disciplines (or just common sense) to actually reach a generalization from their experience.
The core is:
1. Do you fear an ND?
2. Do you fear not being able to get the gun in operation fast enough?
#1 is taken care of by training. If you fear the gun you carry due to its mechanics or your lack of training/ability, then don't carry it. Very simple.
#2 - one would have to have a very, very large data set from the real world to come up with a distribution of handgun incidents that would indicate a disadvantage for unchambered carry. But the incidents have to be broken down to their specifics. Arguing the mean or modal action in multifactor situations is stupid but typical of some gun usage arguments. The mean is NOT guaranteed to occur. This is a stupid conclusion made time and again in gun discussions. You need to plan for a reasonable range of possibilities.
Unchambered carry has risks in some reasonable scenarios that would seem to outweigh the ND risk for those who have trained well. If you haven't trained with your gun then you are a liability and shouldn't carry.
That's about all there is in thousands of posts, endless posts, over and over.
As pointed out the Israeli example is thrown up by folks with little analytic skill as a cliche to prove their point. If you want to analyze such, you need training from various research disciplines (or just common sense) to actually reach a generalization from their experience.
Boris Bush
Moderator
One thing I hate about the internet is sometimes people think they can learn how to shoot by watching youtube.
It looks kool and works good on a range or WHEN YOU ARE ON A MISSION IN A WAR WHERE YOUR HANDGUN IS A BACKUP. Even then it will likely be carried in some kind of retention holster and have a lanyard on it.
Try them kool looking mall ninja moves while carrying a bag of goodies you just bought at the mall and fight off someone that just blind sided you.
Gun fights are not like a trip to the range, they aren't even nowhere close to IDPA or IPSC if you do that stuff.
Listen to M1911, he has pretty well summed it up pretty well, and the training isn't a bad idea either.
It looks kool and works good on a range or WHEN YOU ARE ON A MISSION IN A WAR WHERE YOUR HANDGUN IS A BACKUP. Even then it will likely be carried in some kind of retention holster and have a lanyard on it.
Try them kool looking mall ninja moves while carrying a bag of goodies you just bought at the mall and fight off someone that just blind sided you.
Gun fights are not like a trip to the range, they aren't even nowhere close to IDPA or IPSC if you do that stuff.
Listen to M1911, he has pretty well summed it up pretty well, and the training isn't a bad idea either.
Great responses. Thank you, ALL.
M1991, VERY IMPRESIVE BACKROUND AND EXPERIANCE. Your recomandation regarding Sig Academy is welcomed, as well as all all other recomadations . I was contemplating atending one of SIG Academy clases for a wile. I will at some point.
The arguments that you guys put forward in favor of condition one are very solid. I apriciate your experiance and the will to share it with me. I am always learning from other.
M1991, VERY IMPRESIVE BACKROUND AND EXPERIANCE. Your recomandation regarding Sig Academy is welcomed, as well as all all other recomadations . I was contemplating atending one of SIG Academy clases for a wile. I will at some point.
The arguments that you guys put forward in favor of condition one are very solid. I apriciate your experiance and the will to share it with me. I am always learning from other.
rampage841512
New member
As I've said before on similar threads, you carry how you like and I'll do the same.
Boris Bush
Moderator
buzz knox, MLeake
We only had one guy carry his M9 that was issued to him. It was in one of them fancy Blackhawk holsters and he did use a lanyard C2. There were alot of various makes of pistols on the truck, carried in any manner they saw fit. We mostly had G19s and they all carried them Condition 3. If things got so bad that they needed them they would have been well hidden or covered so speed was not needed.
When we loaded and unloaded we never dismounted to do so. I didn't go to work in a humvee or other light skined truck.
ghost rider out........
We only had one guy carry his M9 that was issued to him. It was in one of them fancy Blackhawk holsters and he did use a lanyard C2. There were alot of various makes of pistols on the truck, carried in any manner they saw fit. We mostly had G19s and they all carried them Condition 3. If things got so bad that they needed them they would have been well hidden or covered so speed was not needed.
When we loaded and unloaded we never dismounted to do so. I didn't go to work in a humvee or other light skined truck.
ghost rider out........
Last edited:
I used to shoot IDPA with a guy who was an IDF veteran - he carried a BHP with a round chambered and the safety on, but he eventually got the SFS system installed and seemed to like it.
We never actually discussed mode of carry in Israel, but he told me the training said that if you're in a fight with a handgun, always keep moving - forward, if possible - and as you pass any downed terrorist, put a bullet through his eye - he was adamant about the eye - to be SURE he won't get up when your back is to him.
Naturally, administering a coup-de-grace like this to a downed bad guy in any except the most unusual circumstances will land you in legal hot water here in TX . . .
We never actually discussed mode of carry in Israel, but he told me the training said that if you're in a fight with a handgun, always keep moving - forward, if possible - and as you pass any downed terrorist, put a bullet through his eye - he was adamant about the eye - to be SURE he won't get up when your back is to him.
Naturally, administering a coup-de-grace like this to a downed bad guy in any except the most unusual circumstances will land you in legal hot water here in TX . . .
vox rationis
New member
M1911 and the rest of you fellows that argue against the "Israeli Method" have said just about all that can be said on this topic, and in a most effective way, IMHO.
It seems to me that people start with the preconceived emotional inclination that it is unsafe to carry with chamber loaded, and then look for examples that support their position, the Israeli Method being one of them.
Since the Israeli method is such an egregious self imposed handicap in the realm of efficient gun handling, I am totally mystified what the point of carrying that way in a potential danger zone would be. I suppose that the only way I'd carry that way is if I had my Glock and no holster, and I was forced to Mexican Carry.
so is that the actual beginnings of the term "mall ninja"?
It seems to me that people start with the preconceived emotional inclination that it is unsafe to carry with chamber loaded, and then look for examples that support their position, the Israeli Method being one of them.
Since the Israeli method is such an egregious self imposed handicap in the realm of efficient gun handling, I am totally mystified what the point of carrying that way in a potential danger zone would be. I suppose that the only way I'd carry that way is if I had my Glock and no holster, and I was forced to Mexican Carry.
that is quite funny
so is that the actual beginnings of the term "mall ninja"?
Last edited:
HankB
The Israeli vet. described the military doctrine and in general what a police officer or a civilian with military training would do in a typical Israeli SD incident, i.e. stopping or preventing a terrorist act.
Typically, one would advance and "reduce the distance" as fast as possible wile striving to eliminate the threat as fast as possible. The use of cover and tactical reload are used wile keeping the trust forward, toward the target. The goal is to get to the target as fast as possible, to keep his head down and busy by creating a high volume of ACURATE fire and eliminate the threat in the shortest time.
If possible, team tactics and other tactics are used.
It should be carefully and skillfully deployed as the terrorists may have explosives attached. Sometime the usual shooting and stabbing are followed by detonating the explosives.
The military teaches that after passing an enemy position, there should be a sweep back in order to make sure no enemy solider is left behind with the capability to do harm wile one moves forward.
Civilians or police officers HERE have no use of this tactics due to the legal implication and public opinion.
The BHP was very popular and widely used in Israel at all levels. I like it and I carry it. There are many other better guns out there, but this is what I like the most. I hate the hammer bite, though.
I was thinking about the SFS, but I am too old to change my decades old (and dangerous to myself, as many here seems to suggest) habits.
IPSC / IDPA leagues in Israel are following the same rules as here.
The Israeli vet. described the military doctrine and in general what a police officer or a civilian with military training would do in a typical Israeli SD incident, i.e. stopping or preventing a terrorist act.
Typically, one would advance and "reduce the distance" as fast as possible wile striving to eliminate the threat as fast as possible. The use of cover and tactical reload are used wile keeping the trust forward, toward the target. The goal is to get to the target as fast as possible, to keep his head down and busy by creating a high volume of ACURATE fire and eliminate the threat in the shortest time.
If possible, team tactics and other tactics are used.
It should be carefully and skillfully deployed as the terrorists may have explosives attached. Sometime the usual shooting and stabbing are followed by detonating the explosives.
The military teaches that after passing an enemy position, there should be a sweep back in order to make sure no enemy solider is left behind with the capability to do harm wile one moves forward.
Civilians or police officers HERE have no use of this tactics due to the legal implication and public opinion.
The BHP was very popular and widely used in Israel at all levels. I like it and I carry it. There are many other better guns out there, but this is what I like the most. I hate the hammer bite, though.
I was thinking about the SFS, but I am too old to change my decades old (and dangerous to myself, as many here seems to suggest) habits.
IPSC / IDPA leagues in Israel are following the same rules as here.
stephen426
New member
P-35HP,
For the record, I don't have anywhere near the credentials as some of these guys, but I have been shooting for a long time and read a lot on shooting and self defense. With that said... here is my view on condition 3 carry.
Is there a law requiring Israelis to carry in condition 3 and only use fmj ammo? Those laws don't exist here. Why not give yourself every advantage you can? Just because this outcome was good does not make condition 3 with fmj ammo the ideal method of carry.
There are many factors that determine the outcome of a gun fight. Maybe the shooter was already watching the terrorist due to the terrorist's behavior. Situational awareness is one of the most important elements for self defense. Since he was already aware, I'm sure his reaction time was much faster than it would have been if he was caught completely off guard. The problem is that drawing and firing from condition 3 will always be slower than drawing and shooting from condition 1. As mentioned, you may not always have both hands free (carrying a kid or maybe your other hand is injured). FMJ rounds have less "stopping power" since less of the energy is deposited into the target. As a hollowpoint opens up and deforms, it slows down more inside the body, depositing more energy into the target. As long as there is sufficient penetration, hollow points will out perform fmj rounds. There is also the possibility that there was a bit of luck involved. There are many incidences where people take multiple hits and are still capable of fighting. It is possible that the shooter hit something vital and that the terrorist just collapsed.
My point (after all of this rambling) is why risk slowing yourself down and why use less effective amo if you are not required to? The main idea in a gunfight is to come out unscathed and to stop the attack as quickly as possible. Do what you likke, but I carry hollowpoints in my guns in condition 1.
For the record, I don't have anywhere near the credentials as some of these guys, but I have been shooting for a long time and read a lot on shooting and self defense. With that said... here is my view on condition 3 carry.
Is there a law requiring Israelis to carry in condition 3 and only use fmj ammo? Those laws don't exist here. Why not give yourself every advantage you can? Just because this outcome was good does not make condition 3 with fmj ammo the ideal method of carry.
There are many factors that determine the outcome of a gun fight. Maybe the shooter was already watching the terrorist due to the terrorist's behavior. Situational awareness is one of the most important elements for self defense. Since he was already aware, I'm sure his reaction time was much faster than it would have been if he was caught completely off guard. The problem is that drawing and firing from condition 3 will always be slower than drawing and shooting from condition 1. As mentioned, you may not always have both hands free (carrying a kid or maybe your other hand is injured). FMJ rounds have less "stopping power" since less of the energy is deposited into the target. As a hollowpoint opens up and deforms, it slows down more inside the body, depositing more energy into the target. As long as there is sufficient penetration, hollow points will out perform fmj rounds. There is also the possibility that there was a bit of luck involved. There are many incidences where people take multiple hits and are still capable of fighting. It is possible that the shooter hit something vital and that the terrorist just collapsed.
My point (after all of this rambling) is why risk slowing yourself down and why use less effective amo if you are not required to? The main idea in a gunfight is to come out unscathed and to stop the attack as quickly as possible. Do what you likke, but I carry hollowpoints in my guns in condition 1.
No laws against the FMJ for civilians. They can choose whatever they want. The police use the FMJ. I do not know about the SF in anti terrorism duty.
Military is FMJ as far as I am aware of.
I think that it was Chuck Taylor that at one point recommended FMJ in .45 at some point.
I carried HP and used FMJ for training only.
I have found (from my trials) that there is a difference in speed between one and three. One is, again for me, about 0.2 sec. (with a Sig) faster when all other factors are similar.
Due to other than speed considerations, I carry the BHP in condition three, and as I said with reliable JHP ammo. One of the considerations is the ability to hit the target all the time every time.
For me, after so many years of practicing condition three and Isoscel stance shooting are instinctive and I score hits better.
To change the hole think, and I have tried it, is uprooting an instinct.
I have to kind of “think a bit", a hesitation, before I draw from condition one and get into Isoscel stance. Getting in a Weaver after the draw is even worth.
I do want to stick with what actually worked well for me, rather than fighting this “instinct” to gain the theoretically advantage of about .2 sec. It is an advantage all right, but at a cost.
I have tried (IPSC for few years and dropped) condition one and Weaver because I wanted to understated what advantages are there for me and
I was curious to see what makes so many people passionate about it. I have found that it is a very good combination that works very well for a lot of people, but not me.
Please understand that I am not saying that condition three is superior or the Isoscel is superior.
I am saying that it worked well for me for many years and I have yet to find a reason and the way to get rid of it.
It is working very well FOR A LOT of people in a country that had seen thousands of terrorist acts, had put the first Air Marshalls on commercial flights who actually defended the planes very successfully against hijackers, had four major wars were losing one has never been an option and a lot of small "mini wars" during the last 60 years.
Dose anyone think that the Sabena incident, Antebe operation, Beirut operation, Alger operation and many other known and unknown operation would have been possible and successful if those people did not have good tactics?
Military is FMJ as far as I am aware of.
I think that it was Chuck Taylor that at one point recommended FMJ in .45 at some point.
I carried HP and used FMJ for training only.
I have found (from my trials) that there is a difference in speed between one and three. One is, again for me, about 0.2 sec. (with a Sig) faster when all other factors are similar.
Due to other than speed considerations, I carry the BHP in condition three, and as I said with reliable JHP ammo. One of the considerations is the ability to hit the target all the time every time.
For me, after so many years of practicing condition three and Isoscel stance shooting are instinctive and I score hits better.
To change the hole think, and I have tried it, is uprooting an instinct.
I have to kind of “think a bit", a hesitation, before I draw from condition one and get into Isoscel stance. Getting in a Weaver after the draw is even worth.
I do want to stick with what actually worked well for me, rather than fighting this “instinct” to gain the theoretically advantage of about .2 sec. It is an advantage all right, but at a cost.
I have tried (IPSC for few years and dropped) condition one and Weaver because I wanted to understated what advantages are there for me and
I was curious to see what makes so many people passionate about it. I have found that it is a very good combination that works very well for a lot of people, but not me.
Please understand that I am not saying that condition three is superior or the Isoscel is superior.
I am saying that it worked well for me for many years and I have yet to find a reason and the way to get rid of it.
It is working very well FOR A LOT of people in a country that had seen thousands of terrorist acts, had put the first Air Marshalls on commercial flights who actually defended the planes very successfully against hijackers, had four major wars were losing one has never been an option and a lot of small "mini wars" during the last 60 years.
Dose anyone think that the Sabena incident, Antebe operation, Beirut operation, Alger operation and many other known and unknown operation would have been possible and successful if those people did not have good tactics?
P-35HP: The US military has done a number of spectacularly good operations. But that hasn't stopped them from doing completely stupid things too, like making security guards carry unloaded guns (e.g., Beirut bombing). I'm sure that the same is true for the Israeli Defense Force. Entebbe was a spectacular success; the most recent Lebanon incursion not so much.
The success or failure of such operations has nothing to do with whether condition 1 or condition 3 is better.
The success or failure of such operations has nothing to do with whether condition 1 or condition 3 is better.
Frank Ettin
Administrator
P-35HP,
I understand that you prefer to carry a single action auto-loader in condition 3. I understand your reasons. And I understand that you're free to have that preference and that you're not alone in that preference. The thing I don't understand is why you, and others who choose condition 3 carry, assume that in an emergency, when you may need to deploy your handgun in a hurry, you will necessarily have the full use of both your hands. Because with condition 3 carry, if you don't have full use of both your hands and you need to use your gun quickly, you will pretty much be out of luck.
As to the supposition that condition 3 has worked, first without a lot of detailed information regarding actual incidents, we really don't know that it does -- or at least we don't know exactly when or how it may or may not have worked in a lot of specific situations. We may be able to infer that condition 3 has been used in some situations and that the user has survived; but we don't know exactly what happened in each situation. Nor do we have any detailed information on the situations in which it didn't work. And, with all due respect, I don't believe that you can assume that condition 3 works for you unless you have been in an actual, violent confrontation and prevailed when carrying you sidearm in condition 3.
It also important to reflect that the tactical problems presented in combat or military operations are vastly different from those that will be presented to a private citizen attempting to defend himself from violent street crime.
I have talked with several people who have prevailed in violent encounters, and in at least a couple of those encounters, the defender in fact had to use his pistol one handed. Had those people been carrying in condition 3, they would not have been able to have prevailed. In any event, you can not make an appointment for an emergency, nor can you predict how an emergency will necessarily unfold.
In selecting your mode of firearm carry and in considering the way you train, I think it's important to remember that it is always conceivable that you will need to use your gun one-handed. I always recommend being able to diploy your gun quickly with one hand and training to shoot effectively with one hand -- both your strong hand and your weak hand.
I understand that you prefer to carry a single action auto-loader in condition 3. I understand your reasons. And I understand that you're free to have that preference and that you're not alone in that preference. The thing I don't understand is why you, and others who choose condition 3 carry, assume that in an emergency, when you may need to deploy your handgun in a hurry, you will necessarily have the full use of both your hands. Because with condition 3 carry, if you don't have full use of both your hands and you need to use your gun quickly, you will pretty much be out of luck.
As to the supposition that condition 3 has worked, first without a lot of detailed information regarding actual incidents, we really don't know that it does -- or at least we don't know exactly when or how it may or may not have worked in a lot of specific situations. We may be able to infer that condition 3 has been used in some situations and that the user has survived; but we don't know exactly what happened in each situation. Nor do we have any detailed information on the situations in which it didn't work. And, with all due respect, I don't believe that you can assume that condition 3 works for you unless you have been in an actual, violent confrontation and prevailed when carrying you sidearm in condition 3.
It also important to reflect that the tactical problems presented in combat or military operations are vastly different from those that will be presented to a private citizen attempting to defend himself from violent street crime.
I have talked with several people who have prevailed in violent encounters, and in at least a couple of those encounters, the defender in fact had to use his pistol one handed. Had those people been carrying in condition 3, they would not have been able to have prevailed. In any event, you can not make an appointment for an emergency, nor can you predict how an emergency will necessarily unfold.
In selecting your mode of firearm carry and in considering the way you train, I think it's important to remember that it is always conceivable that you will need to use your gun one-handed. I always recommend being able to diploy your gun quickly with one hand and training to shoot effectively with one hand -- both your strong hand and your weak hand.
- Status