Why Israeli Carry Is A Bad Idea

Status
Not open for further replies.
Most USAF Security Forces duty does not put them in a situation where they expect to be surprised -- they have time to react.

In combat or imminent threat situations, they will usually have another weapon that they are using.
 
Sgt,

I have no doubt bureaucrats, who have never been in combat, made the regulations on chamber empty and safety engaged. That was to protect them, not the GI.

Long time ago a friend of mine who was a MP (along with his wife) in Louisiana. He came back to recruit at the high schools. He was scheduled to speak at one of them and he asked me for a 1911 magazine to put in his gun.

Yes they issued him a gun and holster but NOT ANY MAGAZINES. SOP was, when off the base doing what he was doing, to have no magazines. Of course that looked pretty stupid in front of a bunch of Texas high schoolers who knew enough to see the gun was empty.

So I let him borrow a Colt blued 1911 mag so his 1911A1 looked like it should.

The bureaucrats just decided that was safer (not chamber empty, not all magazines empty, but NO MAGAZINE!)

So I have no doubt in the AF they say chamber empty and safety on. The GI at the gate is merely a trip wire to the higher ups and once alerted the real security will come forth.

Deaf
 
I have no doubt bureaucrats, who have never been in combat, made the regulations on chamber empty and safety engaged. That was to protect them, not the GI.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you're absolutely right. Seems odd, though, that Massad Ayoob would have that opinion.


Sgt Lumpy
 
I probably misread, my sorry. I thought Mas was recommending carrying an M9 as empty chamber, safety on. I re-read clyde's post. I guess Mas wasn't recommending (hope he wasn't recommending!) that. I can't imagine that he would.


Sgt Lumpy
 
Well I can assure you Mas would not say that. I've had his LFI-1 class and read virtually everything he as written. C1 is defiantly the way he thinks.

But the AF is the AF so I can see some carrier minded general who would not want an AD?ND to tarnish his reputation to order all guns carried to be inoperable. Even in Afghanistan lots of brass insist all guns be unloaded inside the green line.

John Farnam has written alot about this problem and has convinced alot of Marine officers to allow them to carry their weapons fully loaded. But that is just the Marines and certain members of the brass.

Deaf
 
I carry a DAO, so there is no reason for a manual safety or to NOT carry with a round chambered. For defense, I'm a firm believer in DA/SA or DAO for that reason.
 
With regard to military use, when I carried an M9, it was normally (directed by higher) chamber empty, hammer down, safety on safe.

However, when or if we left the base (in a threat region), the M9 (and M4) were changed to chamber loaded, safety on safe; loading barrels were used.

Rounds were removed from chambers (again via loading barrels) upon return to base.

Bean counters seem to think that on base, the risks of personnel injuring themselves via poor gun handling is higher than the risk of actual attack. (Of course, the loading barrels absorb the occasional ND.)
 
Did Mas say why?

Empty chamber AND safety engaged? That sounds really weird.
Click to expand...

I'm going to bet this is only for when they are on base since the military is so crazy about when and where you can have a loaded weapon and in what condition it has to be carried. I'm assuming that the reasoning for carrying with empty chamber and the safety in the on position is based on the Beretta having a hammer drop safety, so when chambering a round with the safety engaged as the slide returns to battery it automatically drops the hammer. So when you do disengage the safety you now have a chambered round but with a DA trigger as opposed to chambering a round with the safety off and having the SA trigger for your first pull. In the military's thinking if a soldier suddenly had to grab their pistols and chamber a round, they don't want them running around base with a SA trigger in case of a AD/ND. Of course this is all speculation but it's about the only sense I could make of it.
 
The question I have, with regard to VOLUNTARY Israeli carry, is why not just carry a DA revolver?

I'd rather run less ammo capacity, than have to worry about getting a gun up and running under immediate threat conditions.
 
Or simply carry it in dbl action ready to fire condition, decocker NOT locked down.
Click to expand...
I do not carry an 92FS, but if I did, that is how I would carry it. HOWEVER, I would also practice ALWAYS bumping the decocker lever upwards from the safe position upon presentation to the target. That's because the safety can be engaged accidentally, particularly during malfunction drills or reloads when the slide is manipulated.

For what it's worth, disengaging the 92FS safety is very easy and quick. You simply bump the lever forward and upward with the thumb "knuckle" of the strong hand. In practice it's a very similar motion to wiping off a downward frame mounted safety.
I guess it's the 92G model that has the momentary decocker lever.
Click to expand...
That is correct, and the "G" style operation is my preference in DA/SA pistols.
 
The question I have, with regard to VOLUNTARY Israeli carry, is why not just carry a DA revolver?

I'd rather run less ammo capacity, than have to worry about getting a gun up and running under immediate threat conditions.

Exactly.
 
Ayoob; military SOPs...

Massad Ayoob was discussing US armed forces SOPs & DoD policy, not his own class SOPs or doctrine.

I'm no longer on active duty, but I've read & seen a few reports from SW Asia that the FOBs(forward operating bases) & HQs had strict SOPs to prevent ADs/shootings.
There were a few cases of troops who would "wig out" & start shooting, :eek:.
Clearing barrels & arms room policy may vary but in general, the US armed forces are very veery of trusting service members with small arms outside of missions.

Clyde
 
Currently, standard Air Force ops are: round chambered, de-cocked and safety off.

I can speak to that from personal experience. In the past it may have been an empty chamber but thats not the way we operate now- can't speak for the other branches of service though.
 
There are many philosophies of carry/preparedness out there, and the someone who wants every speed advantage would want to carry a 1911 type pistol in Condition 1 (cocked and locked). However, others have different takes on the subject, and may value a higher degree of safety against accidents, etc. Since most of us (probably better than 99%) will never be in a fast draw response to an armed threat, the likelihood of NEEDING the weapon to be in Condition 0 or Condition 1 is probably moot. Even cops rarely have to "draw and fire" with little to no hint of a threat, and in the 20 years that I policed, I probably had my gun out already, or would have had time to chamber a round, had my gun been in Condition 3, etc. The theory is sound, but the reality of a quick draw, split second response is rarely encountered, especially if one develops a tactical sense of awareness. That is WAY more valuable than a round in the chamber. Since retired, and having carried some vintage guns in Condition 3, I do not feel greatly handicapped, given my level of experience or awareness. Just having the gun, PERIOD, puts me in a better position than 95% of the population.
 
People keep harping on the time angle; however, the one unifying theme of the three actual real shootings I linked to was that the defenders did not have two uninjured hands free for the draw.

None of the three people in those links were living high risk lifestyles where they had a high probability of assault, let alone a high probability of needing to use a gun immediately and one handed; but it happened - and people get pegged in the hands quite a bit in the force-on-force I've done.

You can use a lot of training time working on a blistering fast Condition 3 draw; but you are still going to need two hands for that. And that time difference between Condition 1 and 3 may be quite a bit more than you planned for once you have to execute it with one hand.
 
So, you have references to three shootings that, after debriefing and gathering the facts, indicated that utilizing the "Israeli Method" had caused failure due to the loss of one hand during the incident. The problem with stats, as I see it, is seldom would you be able to gather data on SUCCESSFUL use of the technique because there would be little need to break down a successful shooting, nor any reason to draw attention to that kind of detail. Care to render a guess as to how many shootings, or uses of a gun, MIGHT have been accomplished successfully IF the Israeli Method had been used? Go to the "Armed Citizen" column in the American Rifleman each month, and see the incidents where the citizen responded with a gun, and note if he/she would have had time to chamber a round while responding. Probably a better indicated than the number three out of (who knows how many). As I said earlier, most concerned, gunfighting minded folk will choose Condition 1. Some will not, and have their reasons.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top