|
Forums46
Topics552,063
Posts9,899,948
Members88,167
| |
Most Online28,231
Feb 7th, 2025
|
|
|
 Re: Pistol Help!
[Re: Sabrinavonbach]
#413594
08/27/08 02:05 AM
|
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 52
MARKIT
Outdoorsman
|
|
Outdoorsman
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 52 |
Wyatt Earp didnt care much for civilians
|
|
|
|
Re: Pistol Help!
[Re: MARKIT]
#413595
08/27/08 02:07 AM
|
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 935
Sabrinavonbach
Tracker
|
|
Tracker
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 935 |
And how did this bit of knowledge come about?
|
|
|
|
Re: Pistol Help!
[Re: MARKIT]
#413597
08/27/08 02:15 AM
|
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 935
Sabrinavonbach
Tracker
|
|
Tracker
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 935 |
No need to apologize. Compared to some of the BS I've heard here it's first class stuff.
|
|
|
|
Re: Pistol Help!
[Re: Sabrinavonbach]
#413598
08/27/08 02:32 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 274
IrishRover
Bird Dog
|
|
Bird Dog
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 274 |
I've got the Sigma in 9mm. While the trigger is a bit heavy (around 9lbs on mine), it seems it's getting better the more rounds I put through it. Also, you get used to firing it at the range. Just pull back about half way, finishing sighting, then pull the rest of the way. You're right the price can't be beat. From what I understand, the Afganitstan military and police ordered a huge lot of these, so S&W was able to sell them cheaply. Even if Academy isn't showing a rebate, go to S&W and see what rebates they have. The $30 or two clips promo ended August 15th, but you never know, they might start it up again. The extra clips go for $38 each, so that was a deal. When I got mine it was $50 back and 2 clips. So I got 4 clips, gun, case and tax for $270 total. Great deal.
|
|
|
|
Re: Pistol Help!
[Re: Sabrinavonbach]
#413599
08/27/08 03:21 PM
|
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 187
fishmagnet
Woodsman
|
|
Woodsman
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 187 |
Quote:
Why keep the hole empty? It only makes you slower and besides it only makes the weapon more dangerous and I like them dangerous.
No more dangerous than keeping the cylinder full in a revolver. In a DAO auto, ya still have to consciously pull the trigger a long way before it goes bang!
|
|
|
|
Re: Pistol Help!
[Re: fishmagnet]
#413600
08/27/08 05:51 PM
|
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 935
Sabrinavonbach
Tracker
|
|
Tracker
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 935 |
Quote:
Quote:
Why keep the hole empty? It only makes you slower and besides it only makes the weapon more dangerous and I like them dangerous.
No more dangerous than keeping the cylinder full in a revolver. In a DAO auto, ya still have to consciously pull the trigger a long way before it goes bang!
The comment about keeping the weapon dangerous was meant as a figure of speech.
|
|
|
|
Re: Pistol Help!
[Re: Big Tony]
#413601
08/27/08 05:55 PM
|
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 935
Sabrinavonbach
Tracker
|
|
Tracker
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 935 |
Quote:
Israeli's, Please!!!
Here's some stuff about the Israeli fast draw method some people might find interesting.
The Israeli Draw: A Timed Comparison
18-Apr-08 – 14:37 by JohnO
Although many people have heard of the Israeli method, there is little available information about how much time the extra step of racking the slide requires. When they guess, most people cite figures of a second or more. Some time ago I decided to answer the question for myself by conducting an experiment.
The experiment consisted of a series of timed trials in which I drew and fired one shot at an IDPA target at a distance of 5 yards. I used a standard DA/SA 9mm P229 in a Galco “Concealable” holster under a medium-weight jacket. Timing was with a shot timer set for a random delay start. A shot was counted for the test if it hit the 0 or –1 chest zone of the target. The times of missed shots or fumbled attempts using the Israeli method because of a problem with cycling the slide were not included in the data.
After a brief warm up, a series of 20 valid trials were conducted in which the gun was drawn from concealment and one round fired using the double action mode each time. Then a series of 20 valid trials were conducted in which the gun with an empty chamber was drawn from concealment, the slide racked manually, and one round fired using the single action mode. After the first 40 trials, two additional 10-trial series were fired, first with the standard technique and then with the Israeli method. During the two 10-trial series, a conscious effort was made to reduce the times as much as possible. The effort to reduce times resulted in a significant increase in misses using both methods and many more fumbled attempts at manually cycling the slide.
The results were as follows:
Standard method, first 20 trials: average = 1.52 sec, standard deviation (S.D.) = 0.05 sec.
Standard method, all 30 trials: average = 1.48 sec, S.D. = 0.06 sec.
Standard method, last 10 trials: average = 1.43 sec, S.D. = 0.04 sec.
Israeli method, first 20 trials: average = 1.81 sec, S.D. = 0.11 sec.
Israeli method, all 30 trials: average = 1.80 sec, S.D. = 0.10 sec.
Israeli method, last 10 trials: average = 1.77 sec, S.D. = 0.08 sec.
The data indicate that manually cycling the slide cost me about 0.3 second per trial, or about 20 percent more time than using the standard method. That was true of both the trials in which I didn’t try for maximum speed and those in which I made an effort to get the shot off as quickly as possible while still maintaining a reasonable level of accuracy. (Of course, the 20 percent figure is valid only for this particular test which was conducted at a shooting distance of 5 yards; longer ranges would increase average shot time and reduce the percentage that 0.3 second would add, and shorter ranges would increase the time delay percentage.)
Another important issue for me was the number of misses and fumbled attempts to get a shot off using the Israeli method. As already noted, misses and fumbled attempts were not included in the above times, but fumbles were much slower than successful trials—often at least two to three times as long. I did not include them in the data because someone who was more practiced with the Israeli method would obviously make fewer mistakes when using it. One thing that the Israeli method must always involve, however, is the necessity of making the transition from cycling the slide with the support hand to achieving a good, two-handed grip on the gun for the shot. The standard method allowed me to achieve a proper supported grip very early in the process. During the initial 20 trials of each method, I had no misses with the standard method and five with the Israeli technique. Again, of course, more practice with the Israeli method would help eliminate the accuracy problem, but it’s obviously still a factor to consider and cope with.
A disadvantage of the Israeli method I haven’t seen discussed before is the third one on Todd’s list. I have, however, actually read claims by some people that if they draw a gun, they will shoot automatically and without hesitation. As bizarre as this philosophy is, it would eliminate the problem of when to rack if drawing a pistol with an empty chamber: Don’t draw until it’s time to shoot and then rack and shoot immediately. It’s nevertheless very difficult to imagine any sensible person’s deliberately handicapping himself to such a degree. (It’s also difficult to even take such a claim seriously, but I’ve read stranger claims, so ….)
I have read many reasons to justify using the Israeli method. I have yet to encounter one that made the slightest sense. It’s interesting to read of highly-accomplished practitioners of the technique. Every time I do, however, I can only wonder how well they would do if not for that self-imposed disability. There’s an old observation about the dancing bears that were once a common feature of traveling carnivals: “What’s remarkable is not how well the bear dances, but that it dances at all.” If I’m ever in a gunfight for my life, I hope to fight as well as I possibly can, and not as well as possible despite a severe handicap. If someone describes it later, I’d want him to say, “He fought well and won,” not, “It’s amazing he was able to fight at all.”
JohnO
4 Responses to “The Israeli Draw: A Timed Comparison”
Evertime I read about the Isreali method I think of the time I was almost attack or car jacked. I was in a situation with an attacker in front of me and later would find out one was behind me. There was no way I could have produced a gun and racked as my weak hand was already held up to show the attacker to stop and take defensive measures if needed.
Taking times like these in a quick draw is good info, but means little value to me. I would rather see how someone using this method does against an attacker on force-on-force with someone that is 10 feet from them. Would they be able to deflect the attack and draw the weapon from cover rack and get a shot off before they are stabbed?
I have seen people rack a slide against clothing (Gabe) when drawing. However, I have always caught my cover garment when trying that method.
By RandyH on Apr 19, 2008
I have a problem with not counting the bobbles, and foul ups when conducting the test as I think it’s very likely that under deadly stress, we will skew towards fouling up a motion than doing it well.
More important than the methodology is the Israeli method’s huge and life threatening assumption that we will have BOTH hands available to manipulate our pistols if we choose to carry it Condition 3. I can think of lots of times that I drew pistols as a cop that required I run the gun one handed, as I was holding flashlights, radios, squirming/fighting suspects, keeping bystanders at bay, etc. I can also think of occasions where good guys were wounded or had their off hands full at the time they needed a gun to save their lives. For that reason, I think it’s a nice “trick” but not a solid TTP. Jeff Gonzales of Trident Concepts has a nice term for a Condition 3 pistol that I think is very illuminating. He calls it a “Dead Man’s Gun”.
By Wayne Dobbs on Apr 23, 2008
I can’t speak for JohnO, but I don’t think he was trying to give a worst-case example of the Israeli draw. On the contrary, he was trying to demonstrate how it would work under the most ideal conditions: two hands, a superlative level of skill where fumbles are less likely, etc. Even then, there was enough of a delay that most people could have fired two extra shots.
By ToddG on Apr 24, 2008
Unfortunately, many people automatically assume that anyone who investigates and discusses something like the Israeli carry/draw method must be an advocate of the technique. In my case nothing could be further from the truth. I believe that at best it’s an example of how the people who have been the most successful in difficult endeavors (such as establishing a nation while surrounded by implacable enemies bent on their destruction) are often those who are least able to adopt new, better ways at a later date. And at worst it’s simple a silly affectation embraced by people who are overly impressed by historical precedent and are incapable of thinking for themselves.
I may be wrong, but I always assumed that the empty chamber carry was a reaction to too many unintentional discharges when weapons were handled while fully loaded. During the early days before and after the establishment of the State of Israel, its soldiers were equipped with a great hodge-podge of weapons that were often in very poor condition. Most of its fighters had little, if any, prior experience with firearms and there was scant time or ammunition to spare on training when the country was fighting for its existence. Then as now Israelis were human beings with the usual complement of body parts, including a single brain. Courage and dedication to a cause don’t compensate for ignorance and lack of skill when it comes to handing firearms safely. If fully loaded weapons were implicated in too many “friendly fire” deaths and injuries, it would be unsurprising that an empty chamber rule was adopted.
Whether I’m right or wrong, though, the empty chamber might have made sense at one time and it may still make sense under certain limited conditions even today. It doesn’t, however, make sense for most people who rely upon handguns for defensive purposes, and if it does make sense for any reason at all, the proper solution to that problem is a better handgun, more and better training, or both—not an outdated, self-imposed handicap.
Regarding my experiment and data, I realize that eliminating the fumbles skewed the results, but I believe incorporating them would have been even worse. As I mentioned, the objection to including fumbles would have been that a more practiced and skilled user of the Israeli method wouldn’t suffer as many miscues as I did. My experience with the technique has been limited to a few widely-separated range sessions. People can argue that even my successful trials were not a fair evaluation of the technique because of my lack of experience. And I wouldn’t dispute that. My purpose in conducting the experiment was to demonstrate the best I could do: if chambering a round after drawing a pistol added only 0.3 second to my times, estimates that it adds a second or more the process are clearly incorrect. I didn’t intend to demonstrate anything more than that.
The reason I described my experimental method in some detail, however, was to allow other shooters to compare my results with theirs. If someone wants to run a bunch of trials and document the effects of fumbles, etc., I’d be happy to read the results.
By JohnO on Apr 26, 2008
Post a Comment
Name (required)
E-mail (will not be published) (required)
Website
|
|
|
Moderated by bigbob_ftw, CCBIRDDOGMAN, Chickenman, Derek, DeRico, Duck_Hunter, kmon11, kry226, kwrhuntinglab, Payne, pertnear, sig226fan (Rguns.com), Superduty, TreeBass, txcornhusker
|
