I did a John Woo double guns and a Collateral alley scene for fun too, but maybe people would be too uptight to enjoy those....Originally Posted by ASH556
I did a John Woo double guns and a Collateral alley scene for fun too, but maybe people would be too uptight to enjoy those....
The empty chamber / eye level visually indexes shooting came from the Sykes-Fairburn method outlined in a book called “Shooting to Live” based on the authors’ experiences and British colonial policemen in Shanghai China in the 1920s.
Their methods, with some modifications were taught to British and US special ops and Intel personnel during WWII.
And of course from those sources to the fledgling Israel.
Not sure where the exaggerated horse stance came in.
Very interesting! Thank you for sharing that information.
“Archer not arrow. No such thing as a perfect pistol. Until you commit to being a better archer, you’ll keep hunting for a better arrow.”
-JCN
I think it's a very valid test. Many people advocate condition 3, but couldn't demonstrate a fast draw if you paid them. Sometimes just seeing what's possible is reason enough.
I think Proctor has a drill based on "Yo homie, is that my briefcase?"
Anyway, fine lines and things. We do try to maintain focus on skill building, excellence, and why behind the what here. Doesn't mean there's not a place for fun, but we also don't want P-F to become barfcom, glocktalk, sigforum, etc, etc. There may be some knob slobbing here, but generally it's earned.
Food Court Apprentice
Semper Paratus certified AR15 armorer
Valid concern. I was one of many detectives working a young veteran killed in a Craigslist-style robbery. He was entangled by two suspects, was able to pull, but was never able to chamber and was subsequently killed. I'm sure he learned to carry empty chamber in the military and just stuck with it.
Our forum has two distinct segments, technical and non-technical. This is a technical forum. While some general fuckery tends to occur and I'm sure people can find exceptions to this...but that's not the purpose of technical forums. Things like discussing best practices would be. Cool parlor tricks are cool parlor tricks and can be enjoyed for what they are, but when you end with a statement that empty chamber is viable in a technical forum expect that to get some attention.
Agreed. Excellent technical
I mean, it's viable in the most literal sense that it's capable of succeeding. I don't think anyone, including the OP, is advocating that it's best practice but I do believe folks who watch the video without the context here could reach that conclusion. In addition to concerns of entangled fights, I'd also add concerns of increased risk of malfunction.
Carrying empty chamber absolutely can get you killed. I can show you in real case files, see example above. Of course the flip side to this is:
I can also show you a few folks who hurt or killed themselves doing exactly that, some managed to get so excited they put multiple rounds in their lower extremities. Nothing sucks like getting shot by the bad guy at your car's window while also shooting yourself in the leg and ankle... I work pretty hard to not muzzle myself during draws, even if seated but recognize that I can screw that up. Yes, trigger discipline...but I can also screw that up. I am not infallible, so the more things I have to screw up before I inflict a fatal or life altering injury on myself the better. Probably a big part of my preference for TDA guns or revolvers for appendix carry. I completely agree that one handed manipulation/injured fighting does sometimes require safety compromises. Which is why we practice them with empty guns.
So if we're discussing the 'unwashed masses' my answer may change vs someone with a modicum of training and common sense.
Sorta around sometimes for some of your shitty mod needs.
Vickers also did a recreation video too. Honestly, in order to do some of these "fun" parlor tricks, you have to have solid fundamentals. The John Woo video was interesting. I started with two airsoft pistols and then went to two 10mm Glocks. Seeing the instinctive point shooting when you're pointing with both sides of your brain was interesting to me and there are a number of conclusions I came up with besides just "parlor trick."
For sure. And I don't think "best practice" is ever possible because it's a trade off of safety and speed... and those decisions are very individualized.
A smart practitioner knows their limits. But never challenging the limits is a sure fire way to never achieve your potential. Which is not best practice.
I think any "best practice" discussion has to have educated risk/benefit calculation.
What is the "best practice" for speed to first shot? Carry your revolver in your jacket pocket with your finger on the trigger at all times so you can shoot through the garment? OWB drop holster in open carry like for competition?
For most people, there's a trade off of non-shooting factors that's very personal. Such as risk of self-harm or accidentally harming children or others.
Double action revolvers, manual safeties, 7 pound triggers, deeply concealed holsters, pocket holsters... and yes, empty chambers... those are all real choices that people choose as their safety trade off.
I was merely pointing out that some people tout "best practice" but don't practice their best practice and have 2+ second concealed draws. Those people have no leg to stand on when pooh poohing others.
I am slower and less accurate with a micro compact carry gun in a lower riding concealment holster. I don't think anyone could say that's "best practice" performance wise compared to a high riding AIWB G19 with 3 pound trigger. But I willingly take the speed trade off for safety as long as I can hit objective performance benchmarks (like sub-second concealed draws).
So is this forum about the theoretical best practice or about how to best practice what you've chosen?
Last edited by JCN; 12-18-2020 at 09:45 PM.
Largely both. There's a ton of information here from recognized experts in fields and topics from weapon selection to post-shooting legal advise.
Sometimes it helps to put what you're talking about in context. A .8X second draw to first shot is excellent. In and of itself isn't not a winning gun fight strategy. Is that the context we're discussing here?
From another recent thread (on the value of timers)I posted this:
Because I'm a believer in "tell us how you know what you know" and you're new, I was a detective in a rather busy Homicide & Robbery office for 6 years. I started keeping detailed stats on citizens defending themselves vs random crime (as in not targeted, no domestics, no drug-dealer turf wars, no police actions, just regular folks minding their own business confronted by violent crime) and have been in a gunfight myself. Certain trends developed on why people won or lost, and one was that draw speed matters to a point in a sub-set of shootings, but the ability to find or create an opening and exploit a weak spot in the opponent's OODA loop mattered more. You can't outdraw a drawn gun vs an attentive bad guy who's willing to pull the trigger. The ability to find or make an opening, present a functioning firearm, and pull the trigger was a winning strategy whereas hell-for-leather under direct observation wasn't.When I was teaching I put together a class for people who already knew the basics of shooting with the goal of imparting tactics, understanding OODA, etc. It was roughly 3/4 range time and 1/4 classroom time with video from actual cases I'd worked, etc.
The very first drill was this:
Dry fire at a target double arm's length away. Shooter assumes the role of "bad guy" and has the gun presented. Finger may be on the trigger at shooter's option (with explanation that bad guys often have shitty trigger discipline). Dry fire as a group with par times. IIRC the first par time was .80, then .60, then .40. Of course damn near everyone would beat even the hardest par time. Then I'd ask who had a sub 0.40 second draw to first shot, which nobody would. I'd then make the point they couldn't beat themselves trying to draw on a drawn gun without disguising the draw, getting inside the OODA loop, etc.
So while this was perhaps an unconventional use of a timer it was a way to make a point that was so clear cut it could not be argued against. It was incontrovertible proof that they couldn't beat anyone else on that line without cheating to gain an advantage in that situation.
Then watching videos you'd start to get an idea of how fast you needed to be, because not everybody won in the videos I showed. How much time a distraction gave you in various situations. Watch someone be too slow (and fail to implement a disguised draw, watching the body language of the bad guy go from confused to "oh shit we're about to fight" and then see the victim catch a bullet just below the jugular notch and maybe realize that fast draw competitions aren't what win the day but slow draws don't either and we don't always have the best tactics but have to fight from the hole we find ourselves in. There are diminishing returns once you're into "good enough" territory for sure, but again who wants to be slower all else being equal?
So while the times are of interest, they are only one part of determining the viability. How much easier is it to create a malfunction while attempting to rack the gun on presentation? If entangled? If knocked to the ground? If injured? Some combination?
If you choose to carry on an empty chamber, my recommendation is to carry a revolver. Harder to shoot yourself, an empty chamber under the hammer only reduces capacity by one instead of mandating additional handling, and the trade off for reduced capacity vs a magazine fed is a negligible factor in random violence encounters. Targeted, capacity comes into play more often. More dedicated attackers, longer distances, etc. But for Joe Random carrying in case of a mugger, not an issue.
As far as carrying in a pocket with a finger on the trigger, not with a finger in the trigger but I certainly knocked on some doors with my hand on a gun in my coat pocket. Pocket draw works very well against street robberies as the suspect intends for you to reach in your pocket. Very few (but not zero) street robbers patted down a victim before telling them to empty their pockets. Verbal indications of compliance to set expectations, not moving fast until it was time to move fast, disguising the draw, they resulted in wins. I don't know what a timer would say, likely not impressive, but they weren't reacting to a timer, they weren't reacting at all. They were forcing the bad guy to react.
So while that ranges a bit far afield of just empty chamber carry, that's the sort of discussion about if something is viable or not for defensive use over pure draw speed on a timer. Which, again, is not irrelevant in a subset of gunfights and I'd much rather be faster then slower, but it's only one part of the equation. Empty chamber carry adds nothing in terms of winning gun fights and can only hurt. It can mitigate risks in carrying, but those are best mitigated in other ways. So, yes, it's viable but I don't see how it's best practice outside of very specific circumstances such as those that lead the Israelis to use it originally.
Sorta around sometimes for some of your shitty mod needs.
I appreciate that and your points are well taken and very valid.
I enjoyed Jim Cirillo's book and I also appreciate Mas Ayoob's writings too.
I completely agree with you that carrying empty chamber is unnecessarily complicated and adds risk for failure.
That's why I carry chambered but with a manual safety.
I do have friends that psychologically cannot or will not carry empty chamber. And at their threat level and relative inexperience with firearms, I can't say that's a bad thing.
I just tell them to practice... whatever method they choose to carry in, but practice.
I like timers because it exposes warts in efficiency.
And like you say, anyone with a brain can quickly see that a manual safety accomplishes pretty much the same safety things as empty chamber, but faster and quicker.
But some people don't have manual safeties or don't want to put in the training to make them automatic (and you can still brain short circuit under stress and not disengage it).
- I don't think empty chamber is best practice
- I don't carry empty chamber
- Some people won't carry chambered due to inexperience
- Carrying empty chamber (with practice) is better than leaving your gun at home, IMO.
Whether you consider that "viable" is semantics.
I like timers. A lot.
But I DO NOT think a fast draw is sufficient for self defense. But it's not mutually exclusive to tactics.
What a fast draw and fast gun handling DOES achieve is good index... so you know where your gun is at any time and things become unconsciously competent. THAT is a goal for any self defense situation so you have more mental bandwidth to digest and strategize the situation. Plus you know internally what tools you have at your disposal at what accuracy level and confidence.
It also lets you adapt to different platforms. I don't shoot this G43x very much, but performance in my hands was similar to my carry gun (P365).
I do these random drills and random scenarios to test my gun handling. So I don't keep doing the same square range stuff and get in a rut.
The variety helps add tools to my toolkit.
I compete in USPSA and it helps for gun handling, transitions and dealing with malfunctions and unexpected things quickly. It is NOT best practice for self defense tactics, but being proficient at USPSA skills gives you tools to modify for other things.
Great insight...thank you.
Reply With Quote