Smart Carry and One In The Pipe Poll Thread

[easyg]

No and no. Nor did I ever say so. What I said is that safer does not equal safe. If a carry method is unsafe with a Glock, I wouldn't consider it safe with a revolver just because of the trigger weight difference. The trigger weight difference can make it safer but not necessarily safe.

So, do you honestly believe that carrying a double-action revolver with a 12 lbs trigger is unsafe in a Smartcarry?

 

[eJack]

So, do you honestly believe that carrying a double-action revolver with a 12 lbs trigger is unsafe in a Smartcarry?

No, and again, nor did I say so. I don't own a smart carry, but just looking at the pictures it is good to go for any handgun that fits and is otherwise safe. That includes stock Glocks and revolvers. I've never heard of a single smart carry accident, and doubt one is possible without a finger on the trigger malfunction. If you are concerned, chamber a snap cap, do what ever it is you think could discharge the gun and see if the firing pin drops.

 

[easyg]

No, and again, nor did I say so. I don't own a smart carry, but just looking at the pictures it is good to go for any handgun that fits and is otherwise safe. That includes stock Glocks and revolvers. I've never heard of a single smart carry accident, and doubt one is possible without a finger on the trigger malfunction. If you are concerned, chamber a snap cap, do what ever it is you think could discharge the gun and see if the firing pin drops.

I'm surprised that you feel the Smartcarry is safe for a gun like the Glock.
After all, it is not a rigid holster.
Really not much better than carrying the pistol in one's back pocket....which I would do with a revolver,but not with a Glock.

Would you carry a Glock loose in your back pocket?
What about a revolver?

 

[eatont9999]

I carry with one in the pipe at all times. I like the 1911 platform the most and that is the way you carry a 1911. Some people are afraid of keeping one in the pipe and the hammer cocked with a 1911, but they usually don't understand the safety features of the gun in the first place. I usually carry either a 1911 or a .38 snubby. The snubby is always fully loaded.

 

[eJack]

I'm surprised that you feel the Smartcarry is safe for a gun like the Glock.
After all, it is not a rigid holster.
Really not much better than carrying the pistol in one's back pocket....which I would do with a revolver,but not with a Glock.

Would you carry a Glock loose in your back pocket?
What about a revolver?

Since I don't have smart carry, I have only a limited idea of how stiff the material would be. I guess I would try pulling the trigger through my pants to see if an innocent groin scratch could result in disaster and go from there. If is like other soft holsters I have, that won't be possible. As for back pocket carry, i'd opt for no on both. I'm a big believer in holsters.

 

[Evela]

Frankly, there are many who believe that "locked and loaded" is dangerous, especially when drawing your gun when your opponent is within arm's length is foolish.

Many experienced practioners, agree that an arm's length confrontation - the distance that is the basis of the "both hands" objection - is a matter of martial arts, not the shooting arts. The goal is evade, disarm, escape and to gain distance so that you can draw, chambered or unchambered. Mas Ayoob is one of them.

'One more time, at arms length, is the object to shoot the other guy, or is it not to get shot? Correct, it is the latter! With that in mind... and within arm's reach, let's look at a non-shooting option.

You are facing the other person a yard away. He goes for his gun. You go for yours. You are good at this: you can react, draw from concealment, and get off a shot in 1.5 seconds. Hell, let's say you're extremely good... and can do this in a second, flat.

You're still behind the curve. The best you can hope to do is to shoot him him just before he shoots you, or shoot each other simultaneously. He is already past the apex of the power curve by the time you can react. His hand is already on his gun, completing the tough part of the draw, the access. Now all he has left to do is the simple gross motor skill part, the ripping the gun up, shoving it towards you, and jerking the trigger. Even if he is a bozo with a stolen gun... he can do this in half to three quarters of a second. You are so close you have to assume you'll take a hit. Remember... proximity negates skill.

Even with your one second draw and lightning reflexes, there is an excellent chance his shot will go off a quarter second ahead of yours. He's an angry homicidal criminal, trying to draw a gun and shoot you as fast as he can, and his attempt to do so is already underway. That's why you're behind the curve. Dying together in the same ambulance is not victory. This (trying to draw and shoot) won't work.

Suppose we had the option of responding with a simple gross motor skill ourselves. Suppose further that ours was easier to accomplish than the opponent's. Would we now have a fighting chance to beat the draw he has already begun? Yes, absolutely. And oddly enough, that option exists.

If you are an arm's length apart and facing one another, as he goes for his gun, you go for his gun too! It is instinctive... to use your hands to ward off danger coming toward you. Let your hands do what is instinctive. Depending on how fast your opponent is your hands should interdict his gun and gun hand just as the weapon is coming out of the holster or just after it has cleared leather.

This movement will "stall the draw" or "smother the draw". You have just bought yourself time... kept him from shooting you, at leaset for the moment. Now, finish what you began. With your lower hand, firmly seize his gun and with your higher hand, grab his wrist. If your left hand is holding his wrist, pull it to your left as your right hand (holding the gun) pulls to your right. You will feel an almost effortless release as his hand separates from his gun.

Where you go from here is up to you. Run away with his gun... create distance between the two of you and draw your own gun. But the point is, you have stalled his draw and disarmed him faster than you could have drawn your own gun and shot him ... and you haven't been shot.'

Bottom line: if you are very close to your opponent, or ambushed, when you only have one hand free, drawing your gun - chambered or not - is a very dangerous idea. As Mas Ayoob has said so well, 'proximity negates skill'. Whether you are chambered or unchambered you need both hands and enough distance to shoot effectively.

 

[1911Tuner]

I think that a logical conclusion could be drawn by asking ourselves a simple question:

"Why would you not carry a defensive sidearm ready to go at an instant's notice unless you're forbidden by regulations to do so?"

Maybe another one would logically follow...

"How many members of the IDL obey that regulation to the letter when they're in a dangerous area?" Or even once they've gotten out of sight of the boss?

The thing about sudden life/death events is that nobody can predict the timing or the place or the ability to use both hands. People who are aware of this realize that the difference between surviving and dying is often measured in tenths of seconds...and that every tenth of a second spent fumbling with a weapon drops their chances of survival exponentially.

I can't speak for anyone else here...but if I was an Israeli who carried a pistol in that country...it would have a round chambered. Regulations be damned.

 

[eJack]

I'll bite. Comments in Bold.

Frankly, there are many who believe that "locked and loaded" is dangerous, especially when drawing your gun when your opponent is within arm's length is foolish.

Many people believe in things that are not so. Foolishness should be judged by results not beliefs. One important result is that a chambered firearm will not go off during a draw unless a finger pulls the trigger.

Many experienced practioners, agree that an arm's length confrontation - the distance that is the basis of the "both hands" objection - is a matter of martial arts, not the shooting arts. The goal is evade, disarm, escape and to gain distance so that you can draw, chambered or unchambered. Mas Ayoob is one of them.

There is no difference between martial arts and shooting arts. Or rather I should say, defensive shooting is a martial art. Goals vary depending on the circumstances. There are perfectly valid ways to employ a handgun while grappling. They are a lot easier if the handgun is already chambered.

'One more time, at arms length, is the object to shoot the other guy, or is it not to get shot? Correct, it is the latter! With that in mind... and within arm's reach, let's look at a non-shooting option.

The object is to stop the threat while minimizing injury to yourself and others. Getting shot isn't always the threat. Even if the initial contact is a non shooting option, it is much easier to transition to a handgun if it is chambered.

You are facing the other person a yard away. He goes for his gun. You go for yours. You are good at this: you can react, draw from concealment, and get off a shot in 1.5 seconds. Hell, let's say you're extremely good... and can do this in a second, flat.

[SNIP]

If you are an arm's length apart and facing one another, as he goes for his gun, you go for his gun too! It is instinctive... to use your hands to ward off danger coming toward you. Let your hands do what is instinctive. Depending on how fast your opponent is your hands should interdict his gun and gun hand just as the weapon is coming out of the holster or just after it has cleared leather.

In this type of scenario I would agree that pouncing on the other guys gun will be more effective than standing there like a paper target and getting ventilated like one. But the moment circumstances change, there will be no time like the present to transition and as I have mentioned, your better off with a chambered gun.

This movement will "stall the draw" or "smother the draw". You have just bought yourself time... kept him from shooting you, at leaset for the moment. Now, finish what you began. With your lower hand, firmly seize his gun and with your higher hand, grab his wrist. If your left hand is holding his wrist, pull it to your left as your right hand (holding the gun) pulls to your right. You will feel an almost effortless release as his hand separates from his gun.

Good luck disarming somebody who knows how to retain. Every time I've done force on force, the disarms turns into a deadlock and its a coin toss who wins. Unless that is, one person can get to a separate gun (helps if it is chambered) and end it.

Where you go from here is up to you. Run away with his gun... create distance between the two of you and draw your own gun. But the point is, you have stalled his draw and disarmed him faster than you could have drawn your own gun and shot him ... and you haven't been shot.'

Bottom line: if you are very close to your opponent, or ambushed, when you only have one hand free, drawing your gun - chambered or not - is a very dangerous idea. As Mas Ayoob has said so well, 'proximity negates skill'. Whether you are chambered or unchambered you need both hands and enough distance to shoot effectively.

With the one exception of trying to out draw an attacker who already is drawing a gun, I would have to disagree. And even in that one situation, circumstances allowing, pouncing with one hand and shooting from near contact with the other is a real quick way to end the fight. And having the handgun chambered will help. Virtually any other life threatening assault would be a great time to defend with one hand and offend with the other. Again, a chambered handgun works well for this. As for drawing an chambered handgun at close proximity, I still fail to see the danger. An unloaded handgun is still a potent weapon if you know what your doing. I for one would rather have an unloaded gun in hand than fend off an attacker empty handed.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Many experienced practioners, agree that an arm's length confrontation - the distance that is the basis of the "both hands" objection...

You're straying off topic here, but I'm curious --

[1] Exactly which "experienced practioners (sic)" agree on that? Would you care to name them?

[2] What makes you think that distance is the basis of the "both hands" objection? In fact, you can not predict how an emergency will arise, and there are any number of reasons why you might not have both hands available if it does -- avoiding an obstacle or moving someone to safety are just two.

The goal is evade, disarm, escape and to gain distance so that you can draw, .... Mas Ayoob is one of them.

Yes the goal is to gain distance, but Mas does not recommend carrying without a round in the chamber. As Mas has written: "...A man not confident enough in his ability to carry a chamber-loaded semiautomatic pistol is better served with a revolver. Operating the slide before firing is a complex psycho-motor skill of the kind that does not survive stress well, and it's normally a two-handed operation...."(http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTT/is_167_28/ai_110457294/ )

...you need both hands ... to shoot effectively....

Now that's not true at all, at least if one trains and practices. In Mas' LFI-I class we do a number of drills shooting strong hand only and weak hand only. Virtually all good classes include both strong hand and weak hand shooting. IPSC and IDPA competition also includes strong hand only and weal hand only shooting. It's an important skill to have. In fact there's an excellent chance that if you do need to use your gun in self defense, you will be shooting one handed.

As Mas pointed out: "...The history of gunfighting shows us at least half the time, we will fire our handgun one-handed when attacked by surprise. The gun must be in a condition that allows one-handed operation...." (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTT/is_167_28/ai_110457294/ )

That said, I do have to say that I'd not be inclined to use a SmartCarry type contrivance. I prefer a holster. But if I did find a use for such a thing, I'd go along with dkk73 and use one of my H&K P7M8s (with a round in the chamber) or my Smith & Wesson 442.

 

[eJack]

I think that a logical conclusion could be drawn by asking ourselves a simple question:

"Why would you not carry a defensive sidearm ready to go at an instant's notice unless you're forbidden by regulations to do so?"

Maybe another one would logically follow...

"How many members of the IDL obey that regulation to the letter when they're in a dangerous area?" Or even once they've gotten out of sight of the boss?

The thing about sudden life/death events is that nobody can predict the timing or the place or the ability to use both hands. People who are aware of this realize that the difference between surviving and dying is often measured in tenths of seconds...and that every tenth of a second spent fumbling with a weapon drops their chances of survival exponentially.

I can't speak for anyone else here...but if I was an Israeli who carried a pistol in that country...it would have a round chambered. Regulations be damned.

I'm with you on this one. I'll never understand the relevance of the Israeli infantry to urban self defense. If I was riding in a personnel transport with 15 fellow soldiers, I'd be fine with being unchambered. If I was in a fire fight at moderate rifle distances, I'd still be fine with my sidearm being unchambered. But there's no dice I'd be going house to house unchambered and I doubt the Israeli's would either. Even if they do, since when did Israeli infantry become the standard to follow?

 

[Evela]

You all bit.

Great objections to my last post, one and all of you "draw at arm's length" advocates. Except you weren't objecting to me at all. The entirety of my post was straight from Mas Ayoob, who obviously supports his own position.

You've been had, and had good. It was great fun. BTW, Ayoob's position is right on the money, and it is especially true for the inexperienced and common CCW carrier.

That Ayoob - a highly experienced and well trained LE professional - chooses to carry hot is not at all surprising. Trained professionals are paid, equipped and trained to take extreme risks that are not appropriate for the ordinary gunowner. Personally, I think both approaches are perfectly valid for different reasons. At the same time he prefers the Israeli rack, and believes strongly that arm's length combat is not the time to draw any gun - unchambered or not.

And his arm's length perspective fits quite well with the Israeli system.

Unfortunately, none of you seem to be skilled practitioners of the Israeli system and accordingly are not the best resources for understanding it. I certainly don't reject those who choose to carry hot and take additional risks to gain what I believe represents a marginal but honestly perceived value to them.

Trust me, the millions of users - including me - who have been trained and use the Israeli system interpret the same situations from a very different perspective that in their opinion provides a higher value. It is not my objective to change your mind, but more to make clear to those who are still deciding that both methods are worthy of consideration.

For those who care, the system is well regarded by a significant number of Glocktalkers, possibly related to the Glock itself: possibly the perfect choice for the method, and the weapon of choice for it's many advocates.

Personally, I find "locked and loaded" rather silly and dangerous. I feel no need to risk my own life by trying to draw hot in a hand-to-hand situation. I prefer to follow Ayoobs recommendations in that case. But if you don't, that is certainly your decision. Regardless, I still think you are all fine gentlemen, despite your sometimes childish remarks and hope that you can join me in calm, respectful and open-minded discussion.

 

[mokin]

I've used Smartcarry for at least two years now. It did take some getting used to but I've long been comfortable with it. I also carry with one in the pipe.

 

[Boba Fett]

Posted by Evela
Personally, I find "locked and loaded" rather silly and dangerous. I feel no need to risk my own life by trying to draw hot in a hand-to-hand situation. I prefer to follow Ayoobs recommendations in that case.

Mall Ninja Evela yet again demonstrates his selective "following" of Ayoob.

Let's see...I think this is probably the 8th or 9th time I've posted this in response to your claims Mr. Mall Ninja Evela. But I guess it'll take at least a 10th. So for everyone's benefit and to once again prove you are simply a Mall Ninja, I give you Mr. Massad Ayoob:


http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles2/ayoob031207.html

Massad Ayoob:
You don’t want to carry a round in the chamber of any semi-automatic pistol that doesn’t have a firing pin lock. It’s not drop-safe. This includes the majority of .22 caliber semiautomatic pistols out there. Carry them with a full magazine and empty chamber, and activate the slide to chamber a round when it comes time to shoot. If that sounds too slow for self-defense, I agree with you. Do what I did and what every modern police department does for its troops, and equip yourself with a pistol that is drop-safe and therefore safe to carry with a cartridge in the firing chamber.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m.../ai_110457294/

Massad Ayoob:
A man not confident enough in his ability to carry a chamber-loaded semiautomatic pistol is better served with a revolver. Operating the slide before firing is a complex psycho-motor skill of the kind that does not survive stress well, and it's normally a two-handed operation. The history of gunfighting shows us at least half the time, we will fire our handgun one-handed when attacked by surprise. The gun must be in a condition that allows one-handed operation.

Posted by Evela
Personally, I find "locked and loaded" rather silly and dangerous.

So I guess you find Mr. Ayoob "silly and dangerous." Why on earth would you follow anything he says if you him so "silly and dangerous?"

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Great objections to my last post, one and all of you "draw at arm's length" advocates. Except you weren't objecting to me at all. The entirety of my post was straight from Mas Ayoob,....

Then provide a citation. We've seen how you distort and mis-characterize Mas' teachings.

Have you ever met Massad Ayoob? Have you ever taken one of his classes? Last October in his LFI-I class, he taught us to carry with a round chambered.

In any case, you are again mixing apples and oranges. Trying to gain distance and avoiding or quickly breaking off a close encounter is one thing. Carrying the gun in such a way that it may be operated quickly and surely with one hand is another. These are completely independent issues.

...I feel no need to risk my own life by trying to draw hot in a hand-to-hand situation....

Carrying with a loaded chamber is not about drawing hot to a hand-to-hand situation. It is about being able to deploy your gun if you don't have both hands free.

...I prefer to follow Ayoobs recommendations in that case...

But you are not following Mas' recommendations.

Massad Ayoob recommends carrying one's weapon with a round in the chamber. Specifically he wrote: "...A man not confident enough in his ability to carry a chamber-loaded semiautomatic pistol is better served with a revolver. Operating the slide before firing is a complex psycho-motor skill of the kind that does not survive stress well, and it's normally a two-handed operation...."(http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTT/is_167_28/ai_110457294/ -- emphasis added)

And he also wrote: "...The history of gunfighting shows us at least half the time, we will fire our handgun one-handed when attacked by surprise. The gun must be in a condition that allows one-handed operation...." (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTT/is_167_28/ai_110457294/ -- emphasis added)

I certainly follow Mas' recommendations -- having taken his LFI-I class and having successfully shot his qualification course.

 

[Evela]

Sorry, coupla quickies are in order:

How many members of the IDL obey that regulation to the letter when they're in a dangerous area?" Or even once they've gotten out of sight of the boss?

Excellent point, and like anywhere else keen situational awareness (see Cooper) is important regardless of any means of carry. At a point, the gun is drawn-racked and made ready, better a bit too early than a bit too late. Until the color code changes to a more dangerous level there's no need to draw.

The thing about sudden life/death events is that nobody can predict the timing or the place or the ability to use both hands. People who are aware of this realize that the difference between surviving and dying is often measured in tenths of seconds...and that every tenth of a second spent fumbling with a weapon drops their chances of survival exponentially.

You are under the misimpression that the Israeli draw takes longer. For an inexperienced citizen - and some professionals too, under extreme stress the problem of fumbling with a weapon is much more likely with the fine motor skills affiliated with the safety (up/down, on/off, loaded or not). Racking is a relatively gross motor skill, that part of daily practice with the Israeli method, and much less likely to fail. And keep in mind is that AD's and ND's pose a far, far greater risk of sudden, immediate and unexpected death that are almost never predicted. And that is more than exponential.

Ejack, all your objections should be directed to Ayoob, as you are responding to his recommendations.

[1] Exactly which "experienced practioners (sic)" agree on that? Would you care to name them?

[2] What makes you think that distance is the basis of the "both hands" objection? In fact, you can not predict how an emergency will arise, and there are any number of reasons why you might not have both hands available if it does -- avoiding an obstacle or moving someone to safety are just two.

Mas Ayoob agrees, and the entirety of my post came from him, sorry. In the Israeli method using one hand to move or avoid an obstacle, or to protect your VIP is part of the process. Since you don't know the method, you wouldn't know that. You've also neatly avoided Ayoob's main point: that arm's length combat is not the time to draw a gun (unchambered or not).

As Mas pointed out: "...The history of gunfighting shows us at least half the time, we will fire our handgun one-handed when attacked by surprise. The gun must be in a condition that allows one-handed operation...."

One of your favorite quotes. It is well to realize that Ayoob is a top LE trainer and professional. Much of his writing is largely directed at his compatriots and at the skilled and trained practitioner. Since this quote seems to support your position you quote it. Unfortunately his own position regarding "arms length" interactions is contradictory. In this very long passage, Ayoob goes to great lengths to convince you NOT to draw, until you either disarm or get free and buy distance enough to draw and fire.

Ayoob's quote is not at all contradictory with the Israeli method. As a fully prepared and trained LE, Ayoob chooses to chamber. Other top operators choose not to. Either way, your objective remains the same - to buy distance enough to draw and fire, or draw/rack and fire. Both methods can quickly be brought to bear to allow one-handed fire, and use of the free hand for other purposes. No big deal.

...you need both hands ... to shoot effectively....

Now that's not true at all, at least if one trains and practices. In Mas' LFI-I class we do a number of drills shooting strong hand only and weak hand only. Virtually all good classes include both strong hand and weak hand shooting. IPSC and IDPA competition also includes strong hand only and weal hand only shooting. It's an important skill to have. In fact there's an excellent chance that if you do need to use your gun in self defense, you will be shooting one handed.

Selective quote out of context, no surprise when you consider that what I said was:

"Bottom line: if you are very close to your opponent, or ambushed, when you only have one hand free, drawing your gun - chambered or not - is a very dangerous idea. As Mas Ayoob has said so well, 'proximity negates skill'. Whether you are chambered or unchambered you need both hands and enough distance to shoot effectively.

It is clear that my entire passage - in context - has to do Ayoob's positions (a) that at arm's length, drawing one handed (your recommendation) is ill advised, and (b) that proximity negates skill. My point that "you need both hand and enough distance to shoot effectively" is accurate, although admittedly poorly worded, and a candidate for misrepresentation.

Once you gain Ayoob's distance, there is nothing in the Israeli system that states precludes shooting one handed. That is also true in your system. Both methods stand ready to shoot one handed if needed, but in general two-handed shooting is more effective in both methods, in that it offers more control and accuracy, quicker acquisition, especially in fast fire.

Bottom line:

Ayoob's arm's length recommendations is pretty clear. First, don't get yourself into this situation in the first place. Second, and if you do, don't draw, and buy distance. Either way, with distance, either draw works just fine, and especially for the inexperience CCW carrier.

And again, let's keep it respectful and continue to explore.

 

[rbernie]

No - we're done here. The OP has been addressed, and I'm of no mind to allow yet another continuation of this disagreement. Y'all have been duking this out in any number of threads, and it's time to give it a rest.