CCW: Keep one in the pipe?

[Rastoff]

BTW, for the speed freaks out there, well-trained C3 shooters are expected to draw, rack, and get a shot off in about 1 second. Lots of experimentation has shown that a good estimate is that it might add .2 seconds to a presentation for the average shooter.

Hogwash. A good shooter can present from concealment and get a shot on target in about 1.5 seconds in 5 yards or less. An exceptional shooter might be able to get that down to 1 second.

There is no way an average shooter will present from concealment, rack the slide and get a shot on target in 1 second. Sorry, I'm not buying it.

A shooter may chose to carry in C3 and that's fine with me. Just don't have delusions about the time cost.

 

[blujax01]

How one carries is their own business. If I were asked my advice, I would say to trust in the method you choose and practice it to the point of automation.

I trust the safety (or decocker) on my pistols because they are reliable machines. And I have practiced enough that I trust my muscle memory to disengage the safety/decocker when the situation warrants it.

I also trust that I will keep my finger off the trigger when I'm carrying a revolver.

Who was it that said "the best safety is between your ears"?

If the worst happens, hopefully I can properly execute this one task while everything else in the world is going horribly wrong. Only one thing, lots of practice, will help in this execution.

 

[gun1]

I know this is an on-going old thread, and this is an old post (from page 1), but I had a comment about the below quote in bold:

Lack of understanding. Lack of training. Lack of practice. All that "lack" will cost a person dearly.

All this predicated by the wrong attitude and mindset.

Kind of goes along with "because I have a gun, I'm automatically ready for anything".

I was in the mountains somewhere last winter on a big trip. One of the guys with me and I were carrying and part of where we went was up in a national forest on snowmobile trails (in a truck...). It was at night and something just didn't seem right about where we were - there were "other people" in the same area. The guy that was with me piped up and said "you can't be worried about anything", implying we were both carrying so what could go wrong? I, being the one driving, turned around and high-tailed it out of there. The point is avoidance - regardless of whether or not we were armed, I would much rather avoid than have the weight of thinking something was going to happen and trying to be ready for it. We had that choice, and the time to make that decision. I was not comfortable in relying on the "safety" of our guns when we were trying to find a place to camp for the night.....

Regarding the original topic of the thread - Those that are caught in stressful situations, I will agree, probably won't have the time to think about what to do to chamber a round. I carry in a mix of hot and cold scenarios. If I am somewhere I am not comfortable with, hot always. There is a little foresight there, and I realize that doesn't mean a whole lot, but it gives me some reason as to how I carry and why.

 

[David Armstrong]

If the time actually comes to use your gun for self defense, your going to need it NOW! Not a second or two from now.
All these guys who say they will have time to rack it have never been in a shooting.

I'm sorry, that is demonstrably false and part of the problem when trying to discuss this issue with a bit of logic and reason. There are numerous examples of people who have been in shootings and had time to rack the slide.

When you get that adrenaline dump into your system, the last thing you need is to start racking your gun as your fine motor skills go the poop, and you may already have blood, water, snow or what ever on your hands.
A dumb idea which is a carry over from the military way of carrying. The military could get away with it, as they pretty much know when they are going to get into the fight.

And yet all sorts of people from all walks of life have managed to do it quite successfully on a regular basis. How strange. I wonder what they know that others don't?

 

[David Armstrong]

I understand that some people don't feel "comfortable" carrying a gun that is ready to fire, my suggestion is to seek more training and a better understanding of how firearms operate. If you aren't comfortable carrying a loaded firearm then you should really ask yourself if you should be carrying a firearm at all.

Again a strange assumption. Lots of folks with lots of experience choose C3 because it fits their situation better. They are quite comfortable around guns, often they have carried them for years if not decades.

Again, this is all my OPINION, but why even bothered trying to be prepared for a bad situation if you are going to put yourself at an automatic disadvantage. Seems to defeat the purpose if you ask me.

Depends on what your purpose is. As mentioned, there are advantages and disadvantages for each method. Depending on your situation and how you look at the problem you can come up with a different solution.

 

[David Armstrong]

Hogwash. A good shooter can present from concealment and get a shot on target in about 1.5 seconds in 5 yards or less. An exceptional shooter might be able to get that down to 1 second.

There is no way an average shooter will present from concealment, rack the slide and get a shot on target in 1 second. Sorry, I'm not buying it.

A shooter may chose to carry in C3 and that's fine with me. Just don't have delusions about the time cost.

First, I didn't say "average shooter" I said "well trained." Nor did I say anything about concealment. The issue is the presentation speed, as clearing from concealment and such should be the same no matter what the condition of carry. Interestingly, a number of LE instructors said much the same at the ASLET conference in Albuquerque regarding speed. After less than 4 hours of training about half the guys taking the course were able to meet the 1 second standard. Try this sight, go to the LE training segment, and watch the video:

http://www.israelicombatshooting.com/

Here are a couple of other videos that should make it clear there isn't much, if any, speed loss by going C3. And as mentioned, you will have a speed loss/gain based on all sorts of other things, such as holster selection, where you carry, etc. Why not be concerned about them?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeIZa-25RaM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGD2j9ks38g

 

[moosedog]

Quote "There are numerous examples of people who have been in shootings and had time to rack the slide."

"And yet all sorts of people from all walks of life have managed to do it quite successfully on a regular basis. How strange. I wonder what they know that others don't? "

Please site your source of information on these examples.

 

[David Armstrong]

Well, given the fact that C3 was the dominant form of carry for autoloaders throughout the 20th Century and we have plenty of reports of it being used successfully, I think that pretty well covers it. You want a very specific source try Claude Werner's analysis of armed self-defense shootings. Then of course there is the fact that the military, both U.S. and other managed to do it for decades and often still do, as did the police in Europe and so on. Heck, the Israelis became so good at it that it is often called the Israeli method. On a personal note I've been in a shooting where I was carrying C3 by policy and had time, as have several acquaintances of mine.

 

[Arik]

The only way I would every cary without one chambered is if I had a Russian holster. They have a specific holster designed in such a way that you unholster down and chamber thd gun at the same time

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 2

 

[venomballistics]

I'm sorry, that is demonstrably false and part of the problem when trying to discuss this issue with a bit of logic and reason. There are numerous examples of people who have been in shootings and had time to rack the slide.


And yet all sorts of people from all walks of life have managed to do it quite successfully on a regular basis. How strange. I wonder what they know that others don't?

I won't argue that it can work. it also depends upon the person.
the key is confidence with ones arms. that rock solid confidence in and with the arm is inarguably a critical cornerstone of the ability to draw, rack aim and fire from C3.
This seems to lead into a sort of catch.
by the time youve developed that skill and confidence, you are probably solid enough to just carry in C1.

In the course of discussion on the matter you might like to impose logic and reason .. however do not ignore the fact that it is due to a lack of logic and reason that we are forced to draw.
at that moment fine steel slips from fine leather, the defender has already been immersed in an illogical and unreasonable environment and is likely under the effects of the stress it imposes.
that is, diminished fine motor skills, scattered panic driven thought processes and a raging debate between the fight and flight responses.
We can't fully recreate the pressure of knowing we will die if we fail during training.
any failed movement between grasping the arm, and firing it represents a system wide failure to the method.
it stands to reason, that the elimination of required movements within a system results in a higher probability of success.
Add steps, such as racking slides, if you must due to your environmental considerations, but always understand that C1 always holds the advantage without resorting to walking around drawn,C0, low ready.

 

[David Armstrong]

I won't argue that it can work. it also depends upon the person.
the key is confidence with ones arms. that rock solid confidence in and with the arm is inarguably a critical cornerstone of the ability to draw, rack aim and fire from C3.
This seems to lead into a sort of catch.
by the time youve developed that skill and confidence, you are probably solid enough to just carry in C1.

In the course of discussion on the matter you might like to impose logic and reason .. however do not ignore the fact that it is due to a lack of logic and reason that we are forced to draw.
at that moment fine steel slips from fine leather, the defender has already been immersed in an illogical and unreasonable environment and is likely under the effects of the stress it imposes.
that is, diminished fine motor skills, scattered panic driven thought processes and a raging debate between the fight and flight responses.
We can't fully recreate the pressure of knowing we will die if we fail during training.
any failed movement between grasping the arm, and firing it represents a system wide failure to the method.
it stands to reason, that the elimination of required movements within a system results in a higher probability of success.
Add steps, such as racking slides, if you must due to your environmental considerations, but always understand that C1 always holds the advantage without resorting to walking around drawn,C0, low ready.

The real problem with that is that C3 was developed and refined for those who have little training and experience and has seemed to work rather well for most of a century. As for advantages, yes, C1 probably has an advantage during a gunfight. But most of us aren't in a gunfight all the time, so that is when the advantages of C3 may come to the forefront. Again I don't say that C3 is better, I just say that C3 has been shown to be a viable alternative and may have some advantages for some people given their situation. There is a reason the military mandated C3 for so long. There is a reason C3 was used by most LE agencies in the world until recently. There is a reason C3 was the dominant mode of carry for autoloaders until recently and is still the preferred method for many people and many organizations in many countries. And the reason is that it works. C1 also works. But just because C1 has come along recently doesn't mean that C3 has suddenly stopped working. This is a simple skill that has been taught to millions of ordinary citizens – men and women – and that is known to be fast, safe and reliable under stress.

 

[Arik]

Why deal with that? Why not just carry loaded? Why add extra unnecessary steps? I understand that the Israelis got it down to a science but why should I carry their way.

Yes if has worked in the past but thats because those guns were unsafe to carry chambered, with the firing pin resting on the primer. Gun technology has evolved, why not use it

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 2

 

[David Armstrong]

Why deal with that? Why not just carry loaded? Why add extra unnecessary steps? I understand that the Israelis got it down to a science but why should I carry their way.

Yes if has worked in the past but thats because those guns were unsafe to carry chambered, with the firing pin resting on the primer. Gun technology has evolved, why not use it

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 2

Don't think anyone is sayiing not to use it. What is being said (and sadly overlooked as happens so often in these discussions) is that there are advantages and disadvantages to both methods and that one should figure out which method gives them the greatest advantage with the least disadvantage. Both methods work for most situations. For some situations C1 may be better, for some situations C3 may be better.

 

[Rastoff]

I'm sorry, that is demonstrably false and part of the problem when trying to discuss this issue with a bit of logic and reason. There are numerous examples of people who have been in shootings and had time to rack the slide.

And yet all sorts of people from all walks of life have managed to do it quite successfully on a regular basis. How strange. I wonder what they know that others don't?

There have also been many who have successfully defended themselves with a bat or just their empty hands, so what? If you want to claim that you're using logic, be logical. Just because one person had time to do it doesn't mean the next will. That is logical. Training with the idea that "someone has done it" is training to the best situation. We should be training to the worst situation.

First, I didn't say "average shooter" I said "well trained." Nor did I say anything about concealment.

First of all, this thread is about shooting from concealment; look at the title. Therefore, it is only logical that we talk about presentation from concealment. Any presentation times used from other forms of carry are irrelevant for this discussion.

Further, "well trained" is not the shooter we are talking about here. Just so we're on the same page, allow me to define what I think when I say "well trained". To me, a well trained shooter is some one who has been to more than one professional self defense training class. This shooter absorbs that knowledge and practices it every week without fail. Dry practice is acceptable, but they must practice.

So, in this discussion, how many of us are "well trained" with whatever method we use? This is my point. Only an expert can present the gun from concealment, rack the slide and put a round on target in under 2 seconds.

Like I said before, if you aren't confident with a round in the chamber, fine. All I want is for people to realize that there is a time penalty for doing so. If you're willing to take that risk, fine with me. Personally I'd rather see people carry in C3 than not at all. C1 is just more effective.

 

[Rastoff]

One more thing about what I noticed in the video.

All the shooters in the video I saw used the thumb and finger grab to rack the slide. In a tense situation we are only half as good as we are at the range. What is your feeling, David, about when you go to rack the slide and your fingers slip off? That seems like it would be yet another issue that will slow you down and is more likely than not, especially with the type of pull they recommend. Thoughts?

 

[venomballistics]

The real problem with that is that C3 was developed and refined for those who have little training and experience and has seemed to work rather well for most of a century. As for advantages, yes, C1 probably has an advantage during a gunfight. But most of us aren't in a gunfight all the time, so that is when the advantages of C3 may come to the forefront. Again I don't say that C3 is better, I just say that C3 has been shown to be a viable alternative and may have some advantages for some people given their situation. There is a reason the military mandated C3 for so long. There is a reason C3 was used by most LE agencies in the world until recently. There is a reason C3 was the dominant mode of carry for autoloaders until recently and is still the preferred method for many people and many organizations in many countries. And the reason is that it works. C1 also works. But just because C1 has come along recently doesn't mean that C3 has suddenly stopped working. This is a simple skill that has been taught to millions of ordinary citizens – men and women – and that is known to be fast, safe and reliable under stress.

your statements herein also pose the beginning of a counter argument. I don't wish to twist or contort your words sir, but with some slight adjustment we have "C1 coming along and largely superseding C3"
this bears the question of ... "Why?"

Arik brought up the Russian Makarov holster system which, I am somewhat familiar with.
rather than draw up, you use a gross motor function of grabbing a fist full of pistol and another gross movement to shove it through and clear of the holster which honestly is a brilliant solution to C3's liabilities as well as some of C1's.
its pure genius, giving credit where it is due. It even disengages the safety automatically, placing all fine motor skills upon marksmanship.
Now if we could figure out how to apply that to all our autos this discussion would have no reason to be
those cold war Russians REALLY put in some overtime on that one.
but again ... it too begs the question "Why?"
Why dump all that engineering into a pistol / holster system if there is not a problem with either C3 or C1?

the answer to both is the same ... speed.

a fraction of a second wasted fumbling with a slide is the end of your life when your inspecting a thugs bore cleanliness.
Perhaps some LEO's and even military can better afford a few time delays as many times they know when they are headed into harms way and can at least put their minds into gear toward dealing with C3, if not, deal with it before ya breach the door.
we citizens, on the other hand, rarely know we are in harms way until the moment harm makes itself known, at which point, the race is on and .01 sec means life or death.
I preach C1 and large calibers for that reason.
I understand making concessions on both due to lifestyle or physical considerations.
C1 in a nightstand with a house full of kids might be one of those reasons to think about C3 just like a wrist full of surgical pins might be a good reason to think 380 instead of 45.
a 45 in C1 isn't an entirely universal fit .. but it is probably the best starting point to negotiate from

 

[Ape Hanger]

Some aren't comfortable carrying with a round in the chamber, some, like myself, aren't comfortable carrying without one in the chamber.

We have to determine for ourselves what caliber to carry, which gun to carry that caliber in, whether to carry Condition 1 or 3, what holster to carry the gun in, and how often we will carry. I've made my decisions in regards to all of the above and am confident in them, I hope you all have done the same. We also have to accept the consequences of those decisions.

 

[David Armstrong]

There have also been many who have successfully defended themselves with a bat or just their empty hands, so what? If you want to claim that you're using logic, be logical. Just because one person had time to do it doesn't mean the next will. That is logical. Training with the idea that "someone has done it" is training to the best situation. We should be training to the worst situation.

But I'm not suggesting that. What I am pointing out is that something has a long record of success across a wide spectrum. That is quite a bit different than "someone has done it." And training to the worst situation is rather pointless, as by definition a worst situation is one that you cannot win. One should train first for the common, then for the unusual, then for the impossible. One probably shouldn't devote much time to training to make a head shot on a BG at 100 yards with a 2" snub, for example.

First of all, this thread is about shooting from concealment; look at the title. Therefore, it is only logical that we talk about presentation from concealment. Any presentation times used from other forms of carry are irrelevant for this discussion.

OK, if you think it takes longer to draw the gun from under your shirt based on if there is a round in the chamber or not, go right ahead. Doesn't seem to make much sense. Sort of like trying to argue the draw time is different if the safety is on or not. When you are trying to determine how much effect different factors have on something you try to isolate those factors.

Further, "well trained" is not the shooter we are talking about here. Just so we're on the same page, allow me to define what I think when I say "well trained". To me, a well trained shooter is some one who has been to more than one professional self defense training class. This shooter absorbs that knowledge and practices it every week without fail. Dry practice is acceptable, but they must practice.

So, in this discussion, how many of us are "well trained" with whatever method we use? This is my point. Only an expert can present the gun from concealment, rack the slide and put a round on target in under 2 seconds.

Which is no different than someone carrying C1. In fact, when discussing "average" shooters it is not uncommon for the shooters to be faster from C3 than C1. One of the advantages to being a trainer with your own range and a somewhat captive audience is the ability to actually test lots of these things out, put them on a timer, and test them.

Like I said before, if you aren't confident with a round in the chamber, fine. All I want is for people to realize that there is a time penalty for doing so. If you're willing to take that risk, fine with me. Personally I'd rather see people carry in C3 than not at all. C1 is just more effective.

Like i said, confidence has little or nothing to it. If you are so lacking in confidence that you are afraid you can't draw your gun and rack the slide without fumbling it all over the place, fine. But reasons for carrying C3 go beyond that. For some the advantages of C3 make it a better choice, for others C1 is a better choice. There is no more of a time penalty than choosing IWB versus OWB, or holster design, or retention levels, or concealment garments, or a host of other choices we make that will create a time penalty as much or more than C1 vs C3. C1 is more effective at some things, C3 is more effective for others. The trick is figuring out which helps you the most.

All the shooters in the video I saw used the thumb and finger grab to rack the slide. In a tense situation we are only half as good as we are at the range. What is your feeling, David, about when you go to rack the slide and your fingers slip off? That seems like it would be yet another issue that will slow you down and is more likely than not, especially with the type of pull they recommend. Thoughts?

First, the "we are only half as good" cliché is just that, a cliché that has been proven incorrect over and over. With that aside, however, it isn't usually a thumb/forefinger grab, it is a thumb/forefinger/web of hand/other fingers grab. This is one of those things where it really helps to have had some training in a subject one is going to discuss. It is faster than the overhand rack and the only way to incorporate the rack into the actual drawstroke. When I do it (using a Glock for example) my thumb is on right side of the gun in front of the serrations, the meaty ball at the bottom of the thumb is on the serrations. My forefinger is over the slide on the left with the web of the hand and the inside bottom segment of the forefinger on the top of the slide. The top pads of the next two fingers are pressed into the serrations on the left. Nothing is slipping off, it is designed to give a good solid grip and lead directly into a shooting platform. It is faster and more secure than the overhand rack or the slingshot rack.

 

[David Armstrong]

your statements herein also pose the beginning of a counter argument. I don't wish to twist or contort your words sir, but with some slight adjustment we have "C1 coming along and largely superseding C3"
this bears the question of ... "Why?"

I'm sorry, but that "adjustment" completely changes the concept. That is like saying the the DOA superseded the SA auto, or the Isosceles superseded the Weaver, or that Kydex superseded leather, and so on. It is not an issue of superseding, it is an issue of different alternatives.

Arik brought up the Russian Makarov holster system which, I am somewhat familiar with.
rather than draw up, you use a gross motor function of grabbing a fist full of pistol and another gross movement to shove it through and clear of the holster which honestly is a brilliant solution to C3's liabilities as well as some of C1's.
its pure genius, giving credit where it is due. It even disengages the safety automatically, placing all fine motor skills upon marksmanship.
Now if we could figure out how to apply that to all our autos this discussion would have no reason to be
those cold war Russians REALLY put in some overtime on that one.
but again ... it too begs the question "Why?"
Why dump all that engineering into a pistol / holster system if there is not a problem with either C3 or C1?

I think you again make an adjustment to the discussion that is not warranted. I don't think anyone says there are no problems with C1 or C3. The issue as I see it is there are advantages and disadvantages to BOTH.

the answer to both is the same ... speed.

a fraction of a second wasted fumbling with a slide is the end of your life when your inspecting a thugs bore cleanliness.

I would suggest if you are busy inspecting the BGs bore, C1 or C3 is not of much concern.

we citizens, on the other hand, rarely know we are in harms way until the moment harm makes itself known, at which point, the race is on and .01 sec means life or death.

I'm sorry, but again virtually all the available information just does not reflect that idea. Rarely will a gunfight be decided in fractional second increments. And again, if it does, there are many other things that have as great an impact on that time (or greater) than C1 vs C3.

I preach C1 and large calibers for that reason.

Which is actually a pretty good example. Many, probably most, decline the large caliber and instead select a medium caliber. Why? Because it fits their overall needs better. It might not be the first choice for a gunfight, but we make a selection based on things outside of the immediate gunfight consideration.

I understand making concessions on both due to lifestyle or physical considerations.
C1 in a nightstand with a house full of kids might be one of those reasons to think about C3 just like a wrist full of surgical pins might be a good reason to think 380 instead of 45.
a 45 in C1 isn't an entirely universal fit .. but it is probably the best starting point to negotiate from

That's all I am suggesting. We all make concessions, we all make decisions based on personal needs and situations. The C1 vs C3 is no different than 1911 vs Glock 17, or IWB appendix vs OWB at 4:30, or polo shirt vs Hawaiian shirt.

 

[Rastoff]

...training to the worst situation is rather pointless, as by definition a worst situation is one that you cannot win.

Yes, you have a point there, but you're being overly literal. What I was getting at is that we should train to be as fast as we can.

OK, if you think it takes longer to draw the gun from under your shirt based on if there is a round in the chamber or not, go right ahead. Doesn't seem to make much sense. Sort of like trying to argue the draw time is different if the safety is on or not. When you are trying to determine how much effect different factors have on something you try to isolate those factors.

You can't equate the safety with racking the slide. The safety can be clicked off in the same motion with the draw. Racking the slide, without some special holster, cannot.


I'm actually surprised to see you write this:

In fact, when discussing "average" shooters it is not uncommon for the shooters to be faster from C3 than C1.

Shooting from C3 faster than C1? No, not even from an expert.

I don't own my own range, but I am an instructor and have trained hundreds of shooters and witnessed thousands more. I haven't timed shooters shooting from C3, but I just don't believe that it's faster. I'd be willing to test that. I'll wager lunch. We could get a bunch of "average" shooters and time them from both C1 and C3. I bet that they'll be faster from C1.


It's just hard to believe that more motion can be faster than less. It's like the guys that say they can shoot a pump shotgun faster than an automatic. I'm sure there are some exceptional people in the world that can, but to say that about the average shooter is...well...difficult to believe.

I was standing in a gun store talking with a young salesman. He had never met me before and certainly had never seen me shoot. He told me that he could present from concealment and get two shots on target before I could get two shots on target starting from the ready. I told him that I'd take that bet and I was willing to put $500 on the line. Not surprisingly he was busy and couldn't get to the range.

I'm sure that Bob Munden, may he rest in peace, could have done it, but not that guy. This conversation is much like that. I'm completely serious. Let's get some guys/gals, go to the range and see which way they can do it faster.