The Israeli way...

Status
Not open for further replies.
No but I don't think carrying a handgun "Israeli style" had anything to do with the success of those missions either. If it works for you, stick with it. As people have already pointed out in this thread, the advantage of carrying with a loaded chamber isn't to gain a fraction of as second in competition but so you can operate your handgun with one hand while an attacker is right in your face, as opposed to having to use two hands for your "handsgun."

Any defense relies on awareness but building in the handicap of an unloaded gun requires you to be even further down the readiness loop. Anyone who says they're in "Condition Yellow" all the time is a liar.
 
m1911

You are missing the point. According to published material, handguns have been used in those incidents.
The point is not who is making more mistakes or what is better. This is not a contest (you know what kind), either.

BOTH ARE WORKINK, AND ARE WORKING WELL. BOTH!!

I have not been presented with any substantial facts proving otherwise.
 
It looks like the arguments for "the necessity" of caring all the time in condition one vs. condition three, the "necessity" to have “one in the pipe”, the 21 feet theory, or the "best" caliber and type of bullet are just theoretical opinions. The reality, in many cases, proves them wrong.
Click to expand...
It's not just the Israeli technique, there are all sorts of other bits of reality that tend to indicate that a lot of the theories have no basis in fact. Of course, lots of so-called theories are nothing more than dogmatic cliches that gun owners have tossed around for years without caring about the accuracy of the statement.

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.
Click to expand...
You talk about a "preconceived emotional inclination " and then make a statement like that, which is obviously based on a preconceived emotional inclination? How strange. As mentioned before, history has shown, over and over, despite all the claims to the contrary, that chamber empty carry is not much, if any, handicap, which is why so many people and organizations have used it in so many really hot spots for so long.

Most of what I read indicates that the so-called "Israeli Carry" (Condition III) was in effect when they had a plethora of different weapons, and that was some time ago. I have read that since they have updated\/standardised their military, C-III is no longer used....
Click to expand...
Don't know. One of the guys I work with occassionally was in Israel around Christmas and he said that Chamber Empty was still the mandatory carry mode, at least for non-LE. Maybe one of the members on the ground in that area can clarify??
 
Last edited:
Fiddletown
Having to deploy the weapon quickly one handed is a question I do not have a good answer for. My answer is slow and cumbersome. Do not like it at all.

I am looking for that answer and this is one of the reasons I bought this subject up. Condition one provides an excellent answer, but for me condition one is not working as well as I would like. You see, I have to hit the target at least as frequent as when I am using condition three.

M1911’s suggestion to attend the Sig Academy or may be one of Mr. Ayoob (which I respect and have read his articles for many years) classes and start from the lowest level may be a good advice. I just need to find the resources to do it.

Agree on the need to practice one handed shooting. I am doing it a lot, but well.. after loading the gun.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Whatever works for you. I second the earlier recommendation to attend training at SigArms Academy, though. They are a top notch facility, you can use your BHP and they'll teach you how to draw into a modern isosceles stance from condition one carry.

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?
Click to expand...

Not sure what the obsession with Israel is about, but I don't think I'd base how I carry my defensive handgun on how many times a country won wars or completed successful operations. One has zero relevance to the other. However if you ever get the chance to talk to a current or former operator in a top tier IDF unit, you just might be surprised on what condition they choose to carry their pistols.
 
David Armstrong
Condition three is mandatory for LE in Israel. Civilians have to qualify with the handgun they own and are expected to use Condition three.

The "many types of old handguns used" theory, AS I UNDERSTD IT is not supported by the reality, in my opinion.

Civilians are using modern handguns both S/A and D/A, mostly Glock, Jericho, BHP (the "FN" as they call it) CZ, SIG, Beretta and clones.

The LE agencies and the Military have moved away from the BHP towards Glock, Sig and Jericho and some Berretta. As far as I know, all are required to adder to condition three.

They are not changing to condition one because they have not enough reasons to. The hit/speed results are more or less similar with condition one, police officers and civilians do not expect to and are not jumped in the streets by the local gang members trying to score points with their peers, so the extreme surprise effect and having to draw one handed are not a major issue for them. It is not that one will walk on the street and suddenly a terrorist will jump on him out of the blue. The type of events they encounter allows much more than the “required” 1.5 -2.0 sec. to draw.

At last event at Ofra, it is not clear what happened. What is clear is the end result.

The military does not consider the handgun not even for back-up in the vast majority of its operations.

SF are using it and when used (the AR or the SMG is always preferred); the gun will be on hand, loaded.

IPSC is condition one.
 
Just curious to know and I mean no offense, but did you talk with one of them?

The "obsession with Israel” is due to:
This system has been developed in Israel and is used there at all levels.
This system is working well for them and me.
In order to make the point that this is a system that works and that the Israelis have experience in tactics, I had to bring examples.

Unfortunately, the discussion is drifting away from what my initial intension was.

You are right. There is no necessary a correlation between how many wars a country won and how you should carry your personal weapon.
However, there may be a correlation between the strategy, tactics, weapons systems, etc., such a country may develop to win the wars and the tactics and weapons you may want to adopt for your benefit.
In short, there is nothing wrong to benefit from somebody else experience.
.
 
Condition three is mandatory for LE in Israel. Civilians have to qualify with the handgun they own and are expected to use Condition three.
Click to expand...
That was pretty much my understanding (carry condition), although the "qualify with the handgun they own" is new to me.
However if you ever get the chance to talk to a current or former operator in a top tier IDF unit, you just might be surprised on what condition they choose to carry their pistols.
Click to expand...
Did that, and he said he always carried chamber empty, as did his colleagues, and he still carries that way here in the U.S.
 
P35: The reality is neither you nor I know how they were carrying in those incidents. US Army policy is that within the wire all guns are unloaded. When a buddy of mine was deployed, he always had a loaded gun on him -- within the wire he just kept his pistol concealed.

Furthermore, in many terrorist incidents, the person who stopped the terrorist was not the person who was attacked. That gave the responder precious seconds to prepare.

Also, once units are outside the wire, the rules from higher ups are often disregarded.

Here in the US, we are far more likely to get attacked by a criminal than to get caught up in a terrorist attack. The attack from a criminal will be against you, at close range, with very little warning. So the time pressure may be far greater than a bystander responding to a terrorist attack against someone else.

Carry how you want to carry. If you want to ensure that it takes longer to get off your first shot, that's your choice. Why you want to do that is completely beyond me, but it is your choice. If you are that worried about an ND, go get some training.

However, don't expect to convince any of us here that condition 3 is a superior way to carry. It isn't.

Honestly, in the amount of time you've spent on this thread, and instructor could have already trained you to carry condition 1. The IDF spends a lot of time training people to draw and chamber a round. Which is completely pointless, when they could simply teach them to carry condition 1 or condition 2 in the same amount of time.

Look, NDs occur because people think a gun isn't loaded. If you carry condition 3 and something bad happens, then you chamber a round, deal with it, and now you have a loaded gun that you are not used to dealing with.

Carrying condition 1 is simpler -- the gun is always loaded, so treat it as such.
 
P-35HP:

You posted:
You are missing the point. According to published material, handguns have been used in those incidents.
The point is not who is making more mistakes or what is better. This is not a contest (you know what kind), either.

BOTH ARE WORKINK, AND ARE WORKING WELL. BOTH!!

I have not been presented with any substantial facts proving otherwise.
Click to expand...

Clearly you are placing too great an emphasis on "published material" and not enough on training.

Before you come to a gun forum and spout off theories, at least do us (and yourself) the favor of getting some instruction from a reputable firearms academy. Very few members here are interested in what you have managed to glean from gun rags.

In another post you claim you are here to
"hear other pepole opinions and learn from them." (sic)
Click to expand...

Yet every time you see an opinion which doesn't fit your preconceived notions (that's a polite way of saying "your uneducated BS"), you argue. Obviously you are more interested in pontificating than in learning.

You asked in one of your posts you asked what was meant by "mall ninja." Perhaps you are more familiar with the term "troll."
 
David Armstrong.

The qualification is probably a 15 year old law.

Unfortunately, after the PM Rabin has been assassinated, the Israeli gov. took dramatic actions to reduce the number of pistol permits. One of the steps was to mandate regular qualification with the gun you own and a certificate from your PF that you are mentally and physically fit to be trusted with a gun.

Lots of "anti- gun “regulations have been implemented since then, with the net result of lots of good people and vets. having to turn in their guns because they did not fit one of many silly new myriad of criterias.

It is sad and almost unbelievable, but true.
 
I love the myth that if Israel does something it must be right... Their systems have plenty going for them and their lack of resources forces them to think outside the box but there is no problem in calling a turd a turd.

Their policy as a catch all for everyone is a turd. Follow it if you wish. The millions of LEOs and citizens who do otherwise in the USA must all be misinformed.

Absolutely nothing in this thread is any different from the many which have preceded it.
 
dawg 23
Thank you for the time you took to read and post your opinion.

Just read and try to understand what I am saying in my posts. I am not a great writer but I have made it clear that I am not trying to convince you or M1911 anything, beside the fact the there is something out there that works, not perfect but works.

Besides, you have no clue what and how much training I have or I do not have, how many "wires" I have passed or didn't, how many classes I took or did not and were if at all.
Nothing, you know nothing about me but have the arrogance to assume that if I do not fit into your square and small brain, I am probably BS.

This is the impolite way to say that you have no respect for something or somebody you do not know or understand because apparently you cannot comprehend that in this big world people, ideas and yes, tactics can be different from what you have learned in your small "inside the wire" place.
 
Yet every time you see an opinion which doesn't fit your preconceived notions (that's a polite way of saying "your uneducated BS"), you argue. Obviously you are more interested in pontificating than in learning.

You asked in one of your posts you asked what was meant by "mall ninja." Perhaps you are more familiar with the term "troll."
Click to expand...

Nothing, you know nothing about me but have the arrogance to assume that if I do not fit into your square and small brain, I am probably BS.

This is the impolite way to say that you have no respect for something or somebody you do not know or understand because apparently you cannot comprehend that in this big world people, ideas and yes, tactics can be different from what you have learned in your small "inside the wire" place.
Click to expand...

And, with those tidbits, this one's done :mad:.

Closed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top