Knife Vs Gun

[OldMarksman]

Mythbusters covered the drill in the 2012 episode "Duel Dilemmas". At 20 feet the gun wielder was able to shoot the charging knife attacker just as he reached the shooter.

Any realistic expectation of what the bullet(s) would do will make one realize that the defender would be in a world of hurt.

To, me, the drill simply tells on that the defender had better be able to recognize and react to the developing attack instantly; start moving; draw fast, with being burdened by extra steps such as disengaging a safety, unless that step is an easy, integral part of presentation; and achieve several hits very fast.

 

[TimSr]

Ever hear the expression "Don't bring a knife to a gun fight"?

 

[OldMarksman]

Ever hear the expression "Don't bring a knife to a gun fight"?

That's really not the point.

Any citizen may be attacked somewhere by surprise by someone with a contact weapon.

That someone may kill or inflict serious injury.

 

[Snyper]

Any realistic expectation of what the bullet(s) would do will make one realize that the defender would be in a world of hurt.

"Realistic expectation"?

It doesn't seem realistic to me to assume the knife will make a killing or even debilitating strike on the first attempt.

Why is it more realistic to assume the knife would be immediately deadly or incapacitating, but the bullets ineffectual?

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by Snyper: It doesn't seem realistic to me to assume the knife will make a killing or even debilitating strike on the first attempt.

Why is it more realistic to assume the knife would be immediately deadly or incapacitating, but the bullets ineffectual?

Second point first: bullets that hit will not be "ineffectual". It's just that it is extremely unlikely that they would stop a charging assailant immediately in his tracks.

To the first point: a stab wound will likely be serious. Period. "Killing"? Maybe not. But so what?

 

[raimius]

Let's also remember that the Tueller drill is based on non-movement and a duty rig, not concealment, that that the 21ft was the "break even" mark.

Anyone inside that bubble can land a contact wound more than 50% of the time, before the defender can draw and fire. Therefore, frustrating that first attempt is critically important to being able to draw and fire without being wounded/killed.

Going to ground may be an option for avoiding that first strike, but it seriously limits your future mobility options. Moving directly away from the attacker buys you a little time, but does not change the geometry. Lateral movement may buy you time, and does change the geometry. As we saw, the combat roll to the side bought the defender more time than simply falling backwards, although it added complexity for the defender as well as the attacker (as he now had to turn almost 180 to aim).

Every scenario is going to vary in the details, so it is important to take some "big picture" lessons.
1. The roughly 21ft bubble is where contact weapons become a better than 50/50 proposition for landing the first hit against a defender with a holstered firearm. (Any smart attacker with an edged weapon will attempt to close the distance before making their intent known!)
2. The defender can and SHOULD present a moving target, in order to evade the first blow and retaliate or escape.
3. Going to ground MAY present a viable option to change the attacker's geometry and provide a slightly longer time to respond, but it has drawbacks for the defender, as well.

 

[AK103K]

It doesn't seem realistic to me to assume the knife will make a killing or even debilitating strike on the first attempt.

Id suggest reading up on the subject and maybe expanding your understanding of things.

"Contemporary Knife Targeting", by Grosz and Janich is a good read. Mike Janich has some interesting videos on youtube as well.

Knives have been a very effective weapon since before man knew how to use metal. They have not lost their effectiveness, and even today, will do things that bullets cant, like defeat a vest. Dont assume that because its "only a knife" and you have a gun, that you will prevail. Arrogance like that, can easily get you killed.

Second point first: bullets that hit will not be "ineffectual". It's just that it is extremely unlikely that they would stop a charging assailant immediately in his tracks.

Unless you get a CNS hit, its not likely at all, unless maybe they watch a lot of TV and think that just because they got shot, they are dead.

Bullets are basically just knives without grips, with either, you need to hit vital organs and vessels, and keep doing so, until the target is down.

Every scenario is going to vary in the details, so it is important to take some "big picture" lessons.

Exactly.

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by AK103K: Unless you get a CNS hit, it [that they would stop a charging assailant immediately in his tracks.] 's not likely at all, unless maybe they watch a lot of TV and think that just because they got shot, they are dead.

Yep.

Bullets are basically just knives without grips, with either, you need to hit vital organs and vessels, and keep doing so....

So few people seem to comprehend that.

 

[Snyper]

Id suggest reading up on the subject and maybe expanding your understanding of things.

I understand it.
It's not new material

Quote:
Bullets are basically just knives without grips, with either, you need to hit vital organs and vessels, and keep doing so....

Posted by AK103K: Unless you get a CNS hit, it [that they would stop a charging assailant immediately in his tracks.] 's not likely at all, unless maybe they watch a lot of TV and think that just because they got shot, they are dead.

Then why do some keep acting like it's all over if someone gets within 21 ft, or simply reaches you with a knife in their hand?

Isn't that really the same?

Dont assume that because its "only a knife" and you have a gun, that you will prevail. Arrogance like that, can easily get you killed.

You expect me to assume the guy with the knife always prevails.

I think that attitude would get me killed faster than thinking I have a fighting chance myself.

Again, it's all just a rehash of a 30 year old discussion, where the only way the knife truly WINS is to keep the parameters unrealistically narrow, and pretend the one with the gun will wait for the attack without reacting at all, and will fall over at the slightest nick.

It has very little practical value in the real world, aside from being something to simply be aware of

 

[AK103K]

Then why do some keep acting like it's all over if someone gets within 21 ft, or simply reaches you with a knife in their hand?

Because it very well could be.

Isn't that really the same?

It is the same. Youre the one who keeps alluding it isnt.

You expect me to assume the guy with the knife always prevails.

Im simply saying that they have to be considered a deadly threat. You seem to not want to accept that.

Again, it's all just a rehash of a 30 year old discussion, where the only way the knife truly WINS is to keep the parameters unrealistically narrow, and pretend the one with the gun will wait for the attack without reacting at all, and will fall over at the slightest nick.

It has very little practical value in the real world, aside from being something to simply be aware of

Being aware of, and understanding things like this is the whole point, is it not?

The only "unrealistic parameter" in the Tueller drill is, both parties are aware the drill is about to occur, and are prepped for it (very much like the old "slap your ear" drill in your martial arts class, to help you understand reaction times). Real world, thats not usually the case for the person being attacked.

The drill is not the end all of any discussion, and as others have said, there are endless possibilities and variations for anything. It simply shows that the knife can in fact be a threat at a distance, and "if" you know the assault is coming, you are within your rights to deal with it using deadly force.

All along, you have stated that the knife is not a viable weapon (and more or less in any capacity), unless its at contact distance, which is true. The point you seem to not want to admit to, is that a person armed with a knife, can be in that position, very quickly, and in many cases, before you can act, especially if youre not 100% aware, 100% of the time, which we all know is an impossibility.

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by Snyper: Then why do some keep acting like it's all over if someone gets within 21 ft, or simply reaches you with a knife in their hand?

I won't speak for AK, but here's my take on it.

It's not "over", an extremely serious situation.

And when it becomes the case that the defender "was [only] able to shoot the charging knife attacker just as he reached the shooter", it is much, much more serious. The objective of the defender is to stop the attacker timely, and/or to avoid being seriously injured. If he shoots at contact distance, he will most likely fail; you just cannot reasonably expect the shots to stop the attacker quickly enough.

Isn't that really the same? [in reference to "with either, you need to hit vital organs and vessels, and keep doing so...." and "unless you get a CNS hit"]

In terms of wounding effectiveness, yes, but let's make sure that everyone understands that a defender with a knife should not be trying to hit vital organs or achieve a CNS hit; rather, he should be effectively slashing the right tendons at the right time to prevent the attacker from doing that.

You expect me to assume the guy with the knife always prevails.

It has been demonstrated ad nauseam that he often will.

Again, it's all just a rehash of a 30 year old discussion, ...

Yes, it is.

...where the only way the knife truly WINS is to keep the parameters unrealistically narrow, and pretend the one with the gun will wait for the attack without reacting at all, and will fall over at the slightest nick.

Whether the guy with the knife "truly wins" is unimportant to the defender. And the defender loses if he sustains a serious injury.

And "not reacting at all" is but one way to ensure that loss. The defender must react very fast and very effectively.

 

[JeffK]

The only "unrealistic parameter" in the Tueller drill is, both parties are aware the drill is about to occur, and are prepped for it (very much like the old "slap your ear" drill in your martial arts class, to help you understand reaction times). Real world, thats not usually the case for the person being attacked.

Ergo, the drill is pointless and so is this discussion. There's no value in drilling for something that is unrealistic and will not happen. Think about it, if you're standing there minding your own business and hear footsteps, are you *really* going to pull your gun out in a knee-jerk fashion and brandish or even fire before you look to see what is happening? If so I submit you are not fit to carry, because almost certainly in 99% of situations like that it's nothing, and other citizens, the police, and the district attorney will not be amused. You can't protect yourself from all possibilities with any weapon, and if an assassin wants to knife you out of nowhere without warning, well, you're going to get knifed. You'll also be blown to bits by a backpack bomb, and you'll also get your head exploded by a sniper - are you going to train for those scenarios too?

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by JeffK: Ergo, the drill is pointless and so is this discussion.

The point of the drill was to research and demonstrate distances at which a person armed with a contact weapon would generally have the ability and the opportunity to present an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm to a police officer or other citizen. The point has been made, and the results have proved useful in both training and in civil and criminal trials.

There's no value in drilling for something that is unrealistic and will not happen.

What makes you think it "will not happen"? There is a lot of value in training for something with extremely serious potential consequences, even if the likelihood of occurrence is remote.

Think about it, if you're standing there minding your own business and hear footsteps, are you *really* going to pull your gun out in a knee-jerk fashion and brandish or even fire before you look to see what is happening? If so I submit you are not fit to carry, because almost certainly in 99% of situations like that it's nothing, and other citizens, the police, and the district attorney will not be amused.

You do not seem to understand the application of the drill at all.

You can't protect yourself from all possibilities with any weapon, and if an assassin wants to knife you out of nowhere without warning, well, you're going to get knifed.

That is, of course, a possibility.

It is also a risk that can be mitigated, and that is what all of this is about.

You'll also be blown to bits by a backpack bomb, and you'll also get your head exploded by a sniper - are you going to train for those scenarios too?

Most of us prioritize our training and other preparedness on the principle of plausibility.

 

[Frank Ettin]

The only "unrealistic parameter" in the Tueller drill is, both parties are aware the drill is about to occur, and are prepped for it (very much like the old "slap your ear" drill in your martial arts class, to help you understand reaction times). Real world, thats not usually the case for the person being attacked.

Ergo, the drill is pointless and so is this discussion...

In other words, you don't understand the history or purpose of the "drill."

Dennis Tueller (a Salt Lake City police officer) developed the exercise to test at what distances an assailant with a contact weapon could be a credible threat. But folks seem to perversely want not to understand the real meaning of the Tueller data.

The point Tueller was trying to make with his exercises is that an assailant 21(+/-) feet away with a contact weapon needs to be taken seriously as a threat. You need to take him seriously as a threat because (1) he can cover the distance between you and him in a short time; and (2) it will take you a roughly comparable amount of time to draw and fire your gun.

Tueller's original article may be read here. Notice that Tueller talks about how being able to recognize what your danger zone is and that someone in it is a credible threat allows one to take early, appropriate defensive, risk mitigating actions.

...There's no value in drilling for something that is unrealistic and will not happen...

In other words, you don't understand the fundamental purpose of a "drill."

In training many drills are not about a particular situation. Many drills we do are about basic skills and knowledge adaptable to many situations.

 

[JeffK]

In other words, you don't understand the history or purpose of the "drill."

Oh I most certainly do, and saying it twice does not make it true. You drill to get muscle memory so actions are automatic, but are you going to automatically pull your pistol and shoot at someone who dares to make footstep sounds behind you? Then you too are not fit to carry.

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by JeffK: ...are you going to automatically pull your pistol and shoot at someone who dares to make footstep sounds behind you?

Of course not! Read Tueller's article. Try to understand the purpose of the drill.

I will react if and when I have a basis for a reasonable belief that I am faced with an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm.

My first reaction will be to try to evade and/or avoid. But after that....

And yes, one of the potential threats may involve an attack by someone with a contact weapon.

For what do you prepare, and how?

 

[Frank Ettin]

In other words, you don't understand the history or purpose of the "drill."

Oh I most certainly do, and saying it twice does not make it true. You drill to get muscle memory so actions are automatic, but are you going to automatically pull your pistol and shoot at someone who dares to make footstep sounds behind you? Then you too are not fit to carry.

Are you suggesting I'm not fit to carry, or to teach? What are your qualifications for making that claim? My background and qualifications are well known and outlined in my profile. So who are you?

In any case, your statement reflects a poor understanding of how people learn physical skills. For one thing, muscles don't have memory. Memory is in your brain.

Furthermore, who is drilling anyone to turn and immediately fire at the sound of foot steps? When doing turning drills, one drills turning and assessing before drawing and firing.

 

[2damnold4this]

Here is an interesting example of knife vs gun. The homeowner was able to maintain distance but the knife wielder threw his knife.

 

[psalm7]

At work I have to deal with all kinds of folks Im good at making them stay atleast arms length away and other than the CRKT in my pocket I'm unarmed . Away from work at arms length Im sure if someone pulls a knife on me they are getting a magazine of hollow points somewhere in there center mass . At 20' they are getting 2 in the chest and 1 in the head . Train like you fight fight like you train .

 

[JeffK]

My background and qualifications are well known and outlined in my profile. So who are you?

Classic internet blowhard. And you did not address my point, which is that if you are using a drill like this to train muscle memory (everyone else understands memory is in the brain, it's a common saying) and react by pulling out your gun, you're a hazard to everyone around you as well as yourself. Ergo, the drill has no real-world value.