Some Medieval Thoughts On Close Quarters And Firearms

Dale--ten points for the Freebie and the Bean reference! That's right along the lines I'm thinking of. The German concept is called "wrestling on the blade." We need "wrestling on the gun." To flow in and out of firearm use without either shooting when we don't want to or having our firearm taken away and used against us. I'm going to keep poking around the sources to see what's out there. Somebody must have developed this more.

Jim--that top one looks like a medieval messer. There's a whole system of fighting based around that blade. Here are some in slow motion:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHEs2m0IXAk
 
I don't know, I use to carry a cane sword and I could draw it in a single slashing motion as it comes out of the cane across a neck in a pretty fast motion, or just smash your gun hand with the metal head of the cane.
Click to expand...

Years of watching Gene Barry as 'Bat Masterson' have programmed me to respect this opinion.
 
While I understand and appreciate the sword, and the skill needed to really good, and how devastating one can be, I don't see much use for it in the real world we live in, today. However, some of skill of sword play can be transferred to the Bowie Knife and IMHO the Bowie can still be a viable backup for the handgun or even without the handgun if one cannot carry a handgun for whatever reason.

I have see a few training videos where there was gun grappling at extreme close ranges involved where a back up fixed blade knife could have been employed with the weak hand, and a large Bowie can be carried easier then a lot of guns, in an inside the pants scabbard. Unfortunately, it is not always lawful to do so.

I do carry a Bowie on the off side sometimes in my home state, because we don't have a blade length law. Sometimes it's a 10-1/2 inch Bowie, Sometimes a smaller knife like my Dozier with a 5.5 inch blade. However, I prefer the big Bowie, as it is a much better weapon, and can be employed in a non lethal manner if one can manage it, same as a baton to a certain extent. I can carry a large Bowie more comfortably then a lot of handguns, so I do, on the opposite side, at times.
 
Actually, the blade still has a place, it's all part of the continuum of force that someone may need to resort to.

In light of using a weapon, such as a rifle, as a combative tool, the military does teach it. It's clearly presented in bayonet training and drills. When you are too close to shoot someone, then you have to resort to strikes, parries, and slashes to create the distance needed to point the weapon accurately enough to discharge it. We say a pistol is what you use to fight to get to a rifle, a knife is what you may need to get to your pistol. A bare hand strike or move to get out of a grappling encounter is what you may need to use to get to the knife.

There is no guarantee that an encounter will happen at a distance YOU select. It sometimes happens at the distance or contact point the opponent decides to initiate the encounter. Being aware is nice, but being trained in response means you can push off the grappler, create distance, and then choose the level of force needed.

It's especially necessary for those who can't always carry a firearm or who can't discharge it in close quarters with other citizens close at hand. Being unable to respond to a less than "firearm" level of force is often very necessary. It's even required for LEO's in their circumstances - and limiting the response to only shooting someone doesn't seem a good choice given the much larger variety of circumstances human conflict can come up with.

There is a very good reason why you do see other items carried by some - they are not only good tools, they are weapons to be used in the right circumstances. A Sharpy or metal ink pen can be used as a impact weapon against the eyes or temple, knives can cut hands and wrists to reduce grip, belts can be used as striking weapons, as well as a heavy object contained in a hankerchief used as a sap.

This is a firearms forum, tho, so the focus is entirely on drawing and shooting the opponent. Which is exactly why it's an extremely limited view of conflict and how to handle it. Lethal force might be necessary, but how it is delivered isn't always just the one option that someone would like to imagine. In the history of man weapons have been used for thousands of years, the firearm has effectively be available less than 150. Putting all your training in one tool and focusing on it alone isn't going to address all situations.
 
I am no expert on swordsmanship and don't even play Errol Flynn on TV, but I thought the usual idea was to have the sword in the right hand and a dagger (the main gauche) in the left for close quarters.

As for firearms, someone once said that "a gun is a labor-saving device."

Jim
 
That was one form of sword fighting. Others used buckler, shield, or two handed swords. Swords were standard alongside firearms for most of the history of firearms. Right up through the Civil War and even into the later 19th century. And while I'm not suggesting we start carrying smallswords around again, I am wondering if we've lost some important tools in the kit. Since WWI the focus has been more and more exclusively on shooting. For good reasons when it comes to military conflict. But for civil fights we still operate on a continuum under the law. Our training seems to be an either/or matter though. Either you have your firearm and are ready to shoot or shooting, or you have something else. Little attention on flowing between the firearm and the LTL force or back again. At least from what I've seen. Which at the extreme end may result in people getting shot who didn't need shooting.
 
The way I see it, the whole point of having a gun is so you DON"T have to resort to physical combat.
Click to expand...

I agree. I have a friend who does semi-pro level MMA and is an absolute BEAST of a man. We talk sometimes about the merits of hand to hand combat vs. the use of ranged firearms. Both sides of the argument have valid points vs. the other. His benefit is he can defend himself much better than me in situations where a firearm cannot be had on the person. My argument stems from things like the advantage of standoff distance and the psycological effect of the presented firearm having a strong "de-escalation" effect on most individuals.

My thinking is it's good to learn both methods of defense. I consider myself competent enough with a concealed firearm, but I am fat and out of shape, pretty short and non-muscular, and quite clumsy. Therefore, if things get hand to hand, for me... welll... I try and avoid those situations at all costs by using the mush between my ears and carrying a firearm at all times everywhere I'm allowed to!
 
Little attention on flowing between the firearm and the LTL force or back again.
Click to expand...

Part of the reason might be our legal system. Today there is the after the fact mindset that using less that lethal force, after using lethal force indicates doubt in your mind that lethal force was necessary, and if such doubt exists, then lethal force is not justified.

Reality, of course, is different, but having to face this particular hurdle in court might explain why training "flowing between the firearm and LTL force or back again" is not emphasized.

In a last ditch, worst case situation, your firearm is an impact weapon. That is not heavily pushed today, likely because today's firearms are poor impact weapons, compared to previous generations.

Times have changed. Troops in WWII and through Korea were trained to shoot, and to fight with the rifle in boot camp/basic training. Both ends and the middle if needed. Today, only certain troops get that kind of training, and its not in basic, its done in specialist schools.

in 1975, my bayonet training in basic consisted of a Drill Sgt holding it up, and saying "This is the M7A1 Bayonet! Take a good look! You will not use it!." When asked why, the response was, "The Army, in its wisdom has decided that if you are in bayonet range of the enemy, the odds are very high that one of you will ammunition, and so we are not going to waste time teaching you the bayonet."

I am also reminded of the story about Pres Roosevelt (TR), and the spike bayonet. Some folks were advocating the spike bayonet, to replace the blade. according to the story, TR took a rifle with a blade bayonet, and in a duel with a Marine guard, cut the spike bayonet off his opponent's rifle with the blade. I don't think we have had a man capable of that in the Oval Office since.

I you think there is a clear need, and a niche for training to "flow" from firearms to edged/impact weapons (and back?) then start a school, and enrich our lives and your wallet.
 
Sword and buckler isn't medieval.
Having a bayonet on a rifle is purely a throw back to muskets. Another military thing that says, "This is how we've always done it and how we'll keep doing it." Like handguns, if you get to where you need one, you've made a very serious tactical error.
 
The bayonet, while a throwback in actual combat as done these days, still has a valid place in the soldier's kit. Its a medium size knife that fastens to the rifle.

May not be the choice for a fighting knife, but its a general utility tool, and it fastens to the rifle. Its not a "weapon" in the sense the rifle is, it is primarily a terror weapon. I think the last US fixed bayonet charge was during WWII. Possibly there have been some others since, small actions somewhere.

The main use of the bayonet (on the rifle) is intimidation. Our minds know that the rifle can shoot, and kill us, but our mind also knows that the blade will cut us. Logically, one should be more afraid of being shot, than stabbed, but our brains don't always process things logically. Cold steel, the naked blade is capable of creating the subconscious fear the rifle alone does not.

There is still a place for a the bayonet, on the rifle. Crowd and prisoner control. VERY useful to have available a less than lethal, painful sharp pointy thing to ..encourage compliance, short of having to shoot someone.
 
Lately, the deployed folks are liking their tomahawks. They report their presence in the hip has impressed the locals. A fine weapon and useful tool.
 
44AMP--that's just what I'm getting at. And I think you're absolutely correct about the legal barriers making it either/or but not both. As for me starting a school, it would be a case of blind leading blind. But I'm going to keep probing around and maybe try some things out. Krav Maga might be a viable foundation for this kind of thing.

Sword and buckler isn't medieval.
Click to expand...

It dates back that far and farther. In fact it's the basis of the earliest written sword fighting manual in existence, I:33. Put together by ex-soldiers who had retired to monastic life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Armouries_Ms._I.33

The art is being revived now by some outstanding martial artists. Esp. Roland Warzecha out of Hamburg. There are also later Renaissance S&B techniques. Many of Cortez's troops were sword and buckler men. Which seems odd until you witness what that little dinner plate can do in trained hands. Someone swinging a flint club is going to be in for a surprise.
 
I use to carry a cane sword and I could draw it in a single slashing motion as it comes out of the cane across a neck in a pretty fast motion, or just smash your gun hand with the metal head of the cane. You have to remember they are 3 1/2 feet long.
Click to expand...
No matter how fast you think you are with a sword, the following still applies:

"Don't bring a knife to a gunfight"
 
This is silly.
People do train for close quarters combat with handguns.
There's less of a need for it because - unlike a sword - you don't have to be within grappling distance to effectively use a gun.

The military doesn't have swords anymore because guns have evolved to the point that you don't need one. Soldiers don't generally ride horses anymore either.

Swords are undeniably cool, and make for a pretty fun hobby, but that's about it.
All of the contrived sceneries where a sword is somehow better involve a swordsman sneaking up on the gunman and getting their weapon into play first. You could make all the same arguments for a cue ball in a tube sock.
 
Yeah, it is silly.

Quote:
This is silly.
People do train for close quarters combat with handguns.
There's less of a need for it because - unlike a sword - you don't have to be within grappling distance to effectively use a gun.

Not as silly as you might think though.
I carried a gun, wore a badge, for over 2 decades in a very violent small city.
FIVE times I was attacked by a knife welding gobblins at bad breath distance.
Absolutely NO chance to draw a pistol. To have done so would have gotten me gutted.
TWO times I took pistols away from gobblins when to have gone for my pistol would have gotten me shot.
ONE time I took a rifle from a gobblin & couldn't have gotten to my pistol.
ONE time a crowbar.
Things can go south in a heartbeat.
Of course that was police work & the average citizen may never find themselves in such a situation.
Would you?
 
"Don't bring a knife to a gunfight"
Click to expand...

Depends on range, 5 to 6 feet, I would say "Don't bring a gun to a knife fight" LOL. But I like guns better.

The military doesn't have swords anymore
Click to expand...

You haven't met any Marines lately have you. (LOL) Do any of you retired jar heads still have your swords?

Jim
 
Jim: The Tueler drill (if I spelled it right?) says 21 feet.
21 feet with a holstered gun and a man attacking with a knife.
It ends in a draw. The guy with the holstered gun gets stabbed just when the gun comes out and the guy gets off ONE shot at the knife gobblin.
At bad breath distances & a holstered gun you'd BETTER go for the knife.
If you go for the knife you'd better know how to control the knife while
disabling the attacker. You'd better know where and how to take a cut, if necessary, and still stay in the fight.
Just having a gun on your person and knowing how to use it will
not promise safety.
There is way more to personal safety than just carrying a gun no matter how good you are at shooting it.
And swords are neat. Wish there was a place where I could learn to use one.
I've read a good spearman could defend against 4 swordsman.
Don't know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top