Israeli carry techniques use non chambered methods

Recently I went through an Israeli training ng program,that emphasizes aggressive tactics,situational awareness,and carrying non racked. Their draw and engagement times rival everybit of a regular racked carry. However all other aspects are a bit different since they work with aggressive tactics,mover to cover first a kneel to rack and clear(taking you out of harms visibility- if in a distance engagement,firing around objects,never over the top etc.

If you know anything about their training,I would be interested in an assessment or thoughts on aggressive (force on force) vs our defensive system. Their emphasis on situational awareness is much higher than our traditional training and is designed to remove one from any potential issue way ahead of time. But the agressive part makes engagement a one way option.


The defense or aggressive part of the training includes if to close to draw and fire(comfortably, using the slide and or barrel of the weapon to create distance to fire(as an example).

The steel of the slide can give “plenty of headache or fracture” etc.

Can aggressive training actually result in a more defensive posture?

1 Like

Let me start by saying that I don’t know anything about the Israeli training regimen or, for that matter, the Israeli criminal justice system as regards self defense.

That being said, my first impression is that here in America the “aggressive defense” could quickly become simply “aggressive” in the eyes of a prosecutor. These tactics could be seen as escalating the situation to violence without an attempt to defuse it.

Perhaps Israeli laws are more straightforward in these matters, or even tipped in favor of the defender.


I know a “little bit” about some of the Israeli tactics that they teach and the reasoning behind them. In the early 90’s I had the opportunity to visit Israel and do some training with some folks there. I (obviously) found it interesting that they as a rule carry with un-chambered rounds in their pistols and “walking around” rifles, for various reasons, that is their rule. Out of that rule they have developed some exceptional methods for getting a gun into a fight. To and including using the pistol or rifle as a “muzzle punch”, a (mostly) non-lethal way of clearing space and reducing a contact threat.

One must understand the mind set in an environment where extreme violence is more common than any kind of violence they we might encounter here. The bad guys don’t show up with a handgun or a semi-auto “pick a stick”, they bring explosives, machine guns and belt fed weapons to the fight so the dynamic is totally different than in the US.

That said Israel is ALWAYS under a constant state of attack from multiple fronts so their training doctrine centers around bringing the most violent offensive actions to the front immediately to stop the threat before it has the opportunity to establish itself. Think suicide bomber, As a general rule these folks are making their final acts and in doing so want the attention prior to lighting off the bomb. Given that little bit of knowledge you only get a couple of seconds to engage so the idea is to bring maximum violence to a violent situation to shut it down. Add to it that the guy/girl/child in the bomb vest may not be the only intended “martyr” in the crowd and some individuals have been used to simultaneously attack or “wrap up” defenders during an attack principally to disarm or prevent/delay engagement.

The Israelis techniques are worthy of study and dare I say some practice. Their tactics/mindset may or may not be suitable or legal in the U.S. That said, excellent information if you can get it and apply it to our rules/standards and laws.




I know little to nothing about Israel’s practices, training or criminal justice system. I do understand that most, if not exempt, are required to serve in the military for 2-3 years. Most of the population is trained with weapons, are trained in first aid, including traumatic injuries, and all other things that the vast majority of Americans have no comparable training, including the vast majority of those who carry concealed weapons.
I disagree with not having a round chambered, especially in an area that is much more likely to see a terrorist attack, but, if that is how they are trained and they can react quickly, then it works for them.


It is interesting,because in there system the draw and rack are simultaneous,reloads happen essentially from a knee( not all,this is to minimize target size) objects are shot around not over( minimizing aggressor sight picture) aggressive tactics are used in confrontations(once engaged) if confrontations start to close for a normal draw,then there are a number of options other than drawing a weapon to shoot. Using it the weapon barrel thrust into aggressor or using the weapon slide if a poly weapon,whole weapon or side if all metal as an object to hit with etc. I think my point was looking at the close in trainings that kept the force on force equilibrium so that if in court,it might be for something other than a death. There are a lot of options not discussed here in how to handle a situation without death.

Really just looking at the different training mentalities,however as craig6 stated they start and end with total aggression. Be more than the one coming at you. In that view if you do not wind up dead as an aggressor,you should recognize the gift given. PS and size is irrelevant in what they do.

It is very interesting training,and seems to offer alot. It fits in with defensive training in the sense of options available to allow life (in the civilian world).

1 Like

Understand their carry policy is written for the lowest common denominator, the draftee with zero firearms experience.

They also live in some of the most densely populated cities and towns on the planet.

Understand why they developed this policy but I do not like or recommend it to anyone.

I am definitely a big fan of an aggressive defense.

1 Like