|
Post by bfoo2 on Feb 3, 2016 20:33:48 GMT
If your enemies are far enough to safely engage with pistol alone in the first place, you probably have time to holster the pistol, draw the sword and a dagger for parrying.
An alternative would be to drop the pistol (assuming the use of a pistol lanyard to prevent you from loosing it indefinitely) and either a) go sword only (my personal preference) or b) draw a knife/dagger for parrying.
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Feb 3, 2016 20:53:15 GMT
Pistol in the off hand, sword in the leading hand. Train to use the pistol I nt he off hand, obviously won't be as accurate as two hands, but it seems like a decently simple but foolproof way of using both.
|
|
Razor
Senior Forumite
Posts: 1,883
|
Post by Razor on Feb 4, 2016 2:46:57 GMT
Pistol in the off hand, sword in the leading hand. Train to use the pistol I nt he off hand, obviously won't be as accurate as two hands, but it seems like a decently simple but foolproof way of using both. Plus it was done in the past this way. @ Redmichael, You can't just think of one scenario. You have to try and think of every scenario and train for it. Reading how it was done historically while training for modern tactical stuff and blend it all together.
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Feb 5, 2016 17:47:29 GMT
It's a fascinating issue. The sword is seen as entirely outdated, but there's no technical reason why it couldn't be used today. The handgun on its own offers pretty much zero defensive capability. That is, it literally defends no quarter of your body. Which is why the Tueller drill ends so badly for the shooter so often. A sword starts defending your quarters the second it's drawn. So against a knife it has some pretty significant advantages.
I like your idea of a transition to the left hand. Though a modern pistol is a pretty crappy buckler. You might be better off with an open left hand and simply drop the empty pistol. Or do what they did back in the day when horsemen used handguns and get it on a lanyard so it will still be there if you need it.
That was fine in the day of single shot pistols, but with high caps you have some pretty big safety problems. You don't want to try to be cutting across your field of fire!
|
|
|
Post by Adventurer'sBlade on Feb 6, 2016 1:03:12 GMT
Thanks for the ideas, everyone. There's a ton of ways to approach this one, of course. When I did this video a few weeks ago, I also explored the idea of dropping the pistol:
Using the pistol in the off hand is definitely a possibility, but my accuracy drops to pathetic levels with my reaction/off hand only compared to my two-handed chapman/modified weaver stance. If I had a single-shot handgun, I'd keep it in my off hand and use it only when someone's just beyond sword reach.
Lanyards are an idea, but I'd imagine that any lanyard long enough to actually shoot the pistol while using will result in a pistol banging on your shins and tangling your leg up if you dropped it and tried to move around. I've never seen one, but a retractable lanyard strong enough to draw the pistol back to your waist if you drop it might be a possibility. Re-holstering the pistol seems more practical than that. I figured that if you're in a tueller-situation and some foe with a contact weapon (or a zombie) is trying to close with you, you won't have time for the extra step of reholstering.
And then, of course, there's the idea of just getting a combination cutlass pistol. Seems like that's been the solution to this problem before.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2016 2:01:53 GMT
There's always a bayonet on a long gun! XD
I guess I'm lucky in that for whatever ridiculous reason I shoot better with my left hand than my right. Truth be told it's more like going from atrocious to poor, but still.
The obvious question is can you run both simultaneously? Are you able to operate the pistol while holding the cutlass? Can you drop a magazine, install a new one, and chamber a round with your sword in one of your hands? Can you hit a target that way?
If you've got a hard scabbard, that would probably be more useful in your off hand than than the dry pistol either for attacking or redirecting. If that's the case, I'd drop the firearm as soon as it stops being useful and go for that. Otherwise, hang on to it as long as you like, you can always drop it or throw it as long as you don't get caught up in your trigger guard. I'd probably go for a free hand. Assuming you managed to survive long enough to get an empty pistol in the first place, I'd rate getting out of there highly so I'd want to be able to climb, push brush away, vault over obstacles, and so forth.
As an alternative it may make sense to think about transitioning in the other order - how would you go from your cutlass to your pistol?
Fun question. :-)
|
|
|
Post by Adventurer'sBlade on Feb 6, 2016 3:26:25 GMT
I see the bayonet on a long gun as better in most every way but one: you can keep a pistol and short sword neatly tucked away on your belt, even covered up by a coat.
Sword to pistol? Fun question. I'd either transfer the sword to my left hand and shoot with my right, or drop the sword. Actually, I think I could shoot with the sword dangling off a wrist lanyard much better than I could sword fight with a pistol bouncing off my shins.
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Feb 6, 2016 6:00:14 GMT
That was fine in the day of single shot pistols, but with high caps you have some pretty big safety problems. You don't want to try to be cutting across your field of fire! Which is why you'd stop firing when an opponent is close enough for the sword (whether it be a cutlass, sabre, hanger or whatever you'd be carrying) to be a viable option for defense and offense. Personally I don't see why it'd be less of an issue with a single action pistol.
|
|
|
Post by bfoo2 on Feb 6, 2016 6:36:56 GMT
On a completely silly note, you could get the Pritchard bayonet for .455 Webley!
Warning: involves use of the badass (at least in my opinion) Webley .455 revolver. Side effects may include a taste of glory from the height of the British Empire.
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Feb 6, 2016 6:52:42 GMT
Hmm yes, that will be excellent for my post tea colonization of the lesser islanders. *adjusts monocle*
|
|
|
Post by Adventurer'sBlade on Feb 6, 2016 7:06:17 GMT
On a completely silly note, you could get the Pritchard bayonet for .455 Webley! Warning: involves use of the badass (at least in my opinion) Webley .455 revolver. Side effects may include a taste of glory from the height of the British Empire. You got me excited until I checked the price of a Webley... As a side note, I have a Cobray .410/45LC single barrel derringer that I'm seriously contemplating welding a Bowie blade to...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2016 13:10:55 GMT
a budget-conscious compromise?
|
|
|
Post by Adventurer'sBlade on Feb 6, 2016 14:45:10 GMT
I've always found those hilarious. I'm actually surprised that nobody's ever made a folding version.
|
|
|
Post by bfoo2 on Feb 6, 2016 17:03:03 GMT
In it's defense, it's not a bad way of preventing someone from springing out of a closet and grappling your gun away. Perhaps not as versatile as the gun and knife combo, but at least it lets you shoot and change mags with two hands.
|
|
|
Post by bfoo2 on Feb 6, 2016 17:04:14 GMT
I bet the Webley-bayo combo would be quite effective against zombie-Boers and zombie-zulu
|
|
|
Post by newfoundviking on Feb 6, 2016 17:27:22 GMT
In the pathetic amount of time I have to practice, I tend to try to cut with right and left hands (alternating my stance) so possibly pulling sword with left hand would be better? Wouldn't have to drop anything.
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Feb 26, 2016 1:22:54 GMT
I'm just picturing the transition between pistol and sword as someone is in close measure. The risk is you'll still be shooting as you're cutting. With a single shot horse pistol or something, you fire your ball and the switch. The choice is made for you by running dry. If you look to modern tactics for switching from an AK to a pistol, for example, they focus on a smooth reliable way to remove the one from the picture before drawing the other. There's an emphasis on one weapon at a time only, for good safety reasons. But it can still be a very fast transition. So to my mind, it would be best to have handgun with both hands then a system for switching over. Whatever is tried, blue guns and blunts are a must I think because a lot of these issues haven't been addressed for over a hundred years!
Swords are of course going to remain mostly a matter for fun and sparring. People don't carry them around anymore. But the potential for a smoother and better system of transitioning between deadly and less lethal force such as a baton is very much needed these days. The way it works now, LEO's tend to get locked into deadly force and have a hard time stepping back. Once the firearm is drawn it tends to stay drawn until the suspect is restrained. Which has led to some real tragedies. Training that permits a smooth and fast shift between handgun and baton or stun gun would be of real help I think.
|
|
|
Post by darth on Jun 16, 2016 7:43:30 GMT
Traditionally, when you had one shot pistols that were about as accurate as my slingshot, they'd put the sword in the right and the gun in the left (off hand) but that started to change as you got better pistols, revolvers and such. That's if you are holding both. Many would shoot their pistol dry, holster and than pull the sword if the enemy closed before they can reload.
Look how many later 19th century handguards would allow you to use the sword left handed, you might not have as much protection but you could do it.
The gun is primary, the sword secondary.
I was working on using the sword in the off hand with a Bavarian Inf O sword to keep distance as you deploy the pistol with your dominate hand. Both regular grips and underhand worked well. Wargamed it with singlestick and training pistol with my 6', 200lbs son.
|
|
|
Post by pellius on Jul 10, 2016 18:50:10 GMT
Interesting topic.
I never carry a sword out in the real world. I almost always carry a pistol. That being said...
With regard to training for the event where an adversary closes inside gun-effective range where you already have a handgun deployed and ready to shoot, I must respectfully submit that it is unlikely you will have time to effectively deploy a sword before the adversary closes inside of sword range. It is my opinion that you would also lack sufficient time to effectively deploy a grappling-range weapon (such as a knife), and that your very limited time will be fully spent securing your firearm and getting your hands, feet and body in a position to trap or grapple.
In a scenario where you intend to replace the pistol with the sword but your adversary is not closing the distance (not sure why you would do this - out of ammo maybe), I would imagine you would holster the pistol and deploy the sword in whatever way you normally train.
My training partners and I have often trained with a pistol against a rapidly-closing adversary. The defense (when the adversary isn't, you know, shot dead) usually revolves around guarding the gun in one hand and fending/trapping/grappling with the other hand, feet and body with the goal of gaining a reliable high-percentage, if brief, window into the adversary through which a round is fired.
All that aside, I wouldn't intentionally choose to engage in a sword fight while one hand is stuck holding a useless (under the circumstances) or recklessly dangerous weapon. I would drop the gun before I risked firing a round in an uncontrolled direction.
That's just me, though.
|
|
|
Post by pellius on Jul 10, 2016 18:59:23 GMT
I response to Cosmoline's comment about LEO use of force (sorry, but quoting is hopeless on an iPhone), I agree. Some LE forces I'm familiar with have begun training in "de-escalation." I'm not a LEO, but I imagine a significant problem is that, once a LEO is faced with a situation that warrants climbing to the very top of the use-of-force spectrum, it is high-risk and low-reward (to self, colleagues and by-standers) to lower the defenses. And that's if reason hasn't already yielded to emotion or adrenaline.
|
|