|
Post by howler on Jul 29, 2016 1:48:21 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. Interesting. Yes, you would want to look at it historically, first. I think you would want a rather heavy handgun with a controllable round, so recoil and accuracy do not suffer (one handing it from your off hand).
|
|
Razor
Senior Forumite
Posts: 1,883
|
Post by Razor on Jul 30, 2016 6:01:18 GMT
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. Interesting. Yes, you would want to look at it historically, first. I think you would want a rather heavy handgun with a controllable round, so recoil and accuracy do not suffer (one handing it from your off hand). Older guns were heavy. I handled a bunch of antique guns and the are heavy. My friend has a flintlock 50 cal pistol and we were shooting it with one hand and it had less of a kick than my 22 pistol.
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Aug 1, 2016 16:52:27 GMT
Older single-shot pistols were sometimes heavier and sometimes not but the ones in military use invariably were. At any rate, that was definitely the time when swords would have been deployed. But single-shop pistols were more for mounted men anyway and they would have carried two of them if possible. Southern cavalrymen did also, if they could get them, and they were six-shooters. The reasons were for the firepower when reloading was slower. For a man on foot, it would have been one shot and that was it. Or, later, six shots and that was it for the time being. There were some techniques practiced by some cavalries of discharging their pistols and wheeling to allow the next line to do the same when attacking a line of infantry. That would have been in the 17th century.
One trick or technique for learning to shoot a pistol (any handgun) with both hands equally well, more or less, is to shoot with identical handguns in each hand. The limitation is that you have to have two identical guns. It isn't something you'd want to do with, say, a .44 magnum or maybe not even with a .45 Colt, but with a little practice you quickly get the hang of it. That is something I've done but I don't know that it's something that anyone teaches.
There used to be a Western-style technique of switching a loaded gun in one hand with the empty gun in the other but I'm sure nobody does that either.
|
|
|
Post by dirtydan on Aug 3, 2016 3:01:44 GMT
If the threat hasn't been neutralized by all the ammo in your weapon and is still coming into melee range, he will be entirely too close for any kind of static transition. Get offline, redirect the attack and either reload or draw in the 1-2 seconds you've just bought would be my strategy. I've worked the Tuler Drill in different handgun classes and could take out the instructor nearly 100% of the time. Even if they could draw and fire in time, my forward momentum always carried me into them. If they had been moving and drawing things would have been different.
Swapping an empty gun to your off hand and drawing a fresh one used to be called a "border switch" if I recall. Since I train with both sides, I'd draw my sword with my off hand and not bother with any transitions. Deal with the immediate threat, then find cover and reload.
|
|
|
Post by Svadilfari on Aug 8, 2016 12:59:25 GMT
A "post-Apocalyptic Sword" ? Don't make me laugh. All this hype about what would be best, etc, etc. It just ain't going to happen. Maybe in the mind of Fantasy writers or Hollywood, and that's it. I'm sorry to say, but I believe if our particular version of Western civilization really collapses, then 99.9999% of the population will be dead within the first month or so. No food, no power. no sanitatation. no transport, no communication. no medical services . It won't take long for what non-perishable foods can be looted from supermarkets to run out, without power, transportation grinds to a halt from lack of fuel. How many of us know how to produce even the simplest of foodstuffs from scratch ? Bread - how do you bake it, how do you mill flour..grow wheat and so on. The only real survivors in such a world are going to be some tribal people who today barely know how we in the West live - The Meek really WILL inherit the Earth . And they won't need swords for a long time...
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Aug 8, 2016 15:40:42 GMT
Oh, you'd be surprised; no one is that isolated. You can find YouTube videos of Amazonian tribes who scarcely wear any clothes, live in thatched huts (I've only seen thatched houses in England), and so on. But they can operate video cameras, use metal pots, and seem to have a fairly successful tourist business. People are way more adaptable than you might think.
As for the pistol to sword transition (I'd rather switch than transition), just be sure to take along some of your friends and make sure they bring their swords, their pistols and plenty of ammunition. More battles are lost because of people running out of ammunition than for any other reason. But I guess that's why you are bringing swords.
|
|
|
Post by Adventurer'sBlade on Aug 15, 2016 3:33:53 GMT
A "post-Apocalyptic Sword" ? Don't make me laugh. All this hype about what would be best, etc, etc. It just ain't going to happen. Maybe in the mind of Fantasy writers or Hollywood, and that's it. I'm sorry to say, but I believe if our particular version of Western civilization really collapses, then 99.9999% of the population will be dead within the first month or so. No food, no power. no sanitatation. no transport, no communication. no medical services . It won't take long for what non-perishable foods can be looted from supermarkets to run out, without power, transportation grinds to a halt from lack of fuel. How many of us know how to produce even the simplest of foodstuffs from scratch ? Bread - how do you bake it, how do you mill flour..grow wheat and so on. The only real survivors in such a world are going to be some tribal people who today barely know how we in the West live - The Meek really WILL inherit the Earth . And they won't need swords for a long time... Wait... you don't grind your own wheat? What do you do with the bones of your fallen foes???
|
|
Zen_Hydra
Moderator
Born with a heart full of neutrality
Posts: 2,623
|
Post by Zen_Hydra on Aug 15, 2016 4:03:52 GMT
A "post-Apocalyptic Sword" ? Don't make me laugh. All this hype about what would be best, etc, etc. It just ain't going to happen. Maybe in the mind of Fantasy writers or Hollywood, and that's it. I'm sorry to say, but I believe if our particular version of Western civilization really collapses, then 99.9999% of the population will be dead within the first month or so. No food, no power. no sanitatation. no transport, no communication. no medical services . It won't take long for what non-perishable foods can be looted from supermarkets to run out, without power, transportation grinds to a halt from lack of fuel. How many of us know how to produce even the simplest of foodstuffs from scratch ? Bread - how do you bake it, how do you mill flour..grow wheat and so on. The only real survivors in such a world are going to be some tribal people who today barely know how we in the West live - The Meek really WILL inherit the Earth . And they won't need swords for a long time... So, the Amish are a tribal people? I'm pretty sure you are selling 'the West' a little short. I know quite a few people with primitive survival skills, and they aren't even the crazy preppers that I know.
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Aug 15, 2016 12:17:14 GMT
A post-apocalyptic world as you describe existed about 150 years ago. The Japanese had the streetcars running in Hiroshima the day after the atomic bomb destroyed most of the city. And by the way, they were the last army to generally carry swords into battle.
|
|
|
Post by MOK on Aug 15, 2016 13:15:52 GMT
Speaking of lanyards, instead of one fixed to your holster or belt or wrist I'd rather use a one-point sling around your shoulder(s). It would neither hinder use nor tangle your legs when dropped.
|
|
|
Post by pellius on Aug 15, 2016 14:38:41 GMT
"Wait... you don't grind your own wheat? What do you do with the bones of your fallen foes???"
Actually lol'd.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Aug 19, 2016 3:50:32 GMT
A "post-Apocalyptic Sword" ? Don't make me laugh. All this hype about what would be best, etc, etc. It just ain't going to happen. Maybe in the mind of Fantasy writers or Hollywood, and that's it. I'm sorry to say, but I believe if our particular version of Western civilization really collapses, then 99.9999% of the population will be dead within the first month or so. No food, no power. no sanitatation. no transport, no communication. no medical services . It won't take long for what non-perishable foods can be looted from supermarkets to run out, without power, transportation grinds to a halt from lack of fuel. How many of us know how to produce even the simplest of foodstuffs from scratch ? Bread - how do you bake it, how do you mill flour..grow wheat and so on. The only real survivors in such a world are going to be some tribal people who today barely know how we in the West live - The Meek really WILL inherit the Earth . And they won't need swords for a long time... Wait... you don't grind your own wheat? What do you do with the bones of your fallen foes??? Actually, your kind of on to something, as the food will be all around you...other people. Now, are you a leg man or breast...gulp?
|
|
|
Post by howler on Aug 19, 2016 3:53:47 GMT
A post-apocalyptic world as you describe existed about 150 years ago. The Japanese had the streetcars running in Hiroshima the day after the atomic bomb destroyed most of the city. And by the way, they were last army to generally carry swords into battle. This is true, but there was aid from the West, and depending on the nature of the disaster, if its world wide (with a pop. of over 7 Billion), your potentially talking about the death of Billions.
|
|
|
Post by Adventurer'sBlade on Aug 19, 2016 4:14:38 GMT
People take the concept of "SHTF" too literally. Things don't have to fall apart for everyone everywhere... just for YOU, for a while. The lights will almost certainly come back on at some point, and records will be made, crimes investigated, etc. etc.
Doesn't mean you shouldn't know your sword and pistol.
|
|
|
Post by Adventurer'sBlade on Aug 19, 2016 4:15:40 GMT
In fact, I believe there are probably millions of people living in a state we would consider SHTF at this very moment.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Aug 19, 2016 20:47:33 GMT
In fact, I believe there are probably millions of people living in a state we would consider SHTF at this very moment. Yup, regional disasters. If something happens to half a state, where you live, it sure would feel like the apocalypse by your perspective. In the Northwest, where I live, Mt. Rainier could blow, we could get a massive earthquake...and then there is that Socialist city council member.
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Aug 20, 2016 19:28:40 GMT
The neighbor who helps you is the true socialist. But perhaps you aren't expecting help, based on your own concept of neighborliness. Remember that after 9/11, people went to New York to offer to help.
There was a Twilight Zone episode about a man who loved to read, so much so that his wife was mad at him and he almost lost his job as a bank teller. He wore very thick glasses, probably because he read too much. He was taking his lunch break in the vault of the bank where he worked. When he came out after what seemed like an earthquake, he discovered the city was destroyed. When he got over the shock, he foraged around for food and had no trouble finding plenty. Then he wandered by the library, which was in ruins but there were piles of books everywhere. At last he had all the time in the world to sit and read.
Then he dropped his glasses.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Aug 20, 2016 20:59:04 GMT
The neighbor who helps you is the true socialist. But perhaps you aren't expecting help, based on your own concept of neighborliness. Remember that after 9/11, people went to New York to offer to help. There was a Twilight Zone episode about a man who loved to read, so much so that his wife was mad at him and he almost lost his job as a bank teller. He wore very thick glasses, probably because he read too much. He was taking his lunch break in the vault of the bank where he worked. When he came out after what seemed like an earthquake, he discovered the city was destroyed. When he got over the shock, he foraged around for food and had no trouble finding plenty. Then he wandered by the library, which was in ruins but there were piles of books everywhere. At last he had all the time in the world to sit and read. Then he dropped his glasses. Classic episode with Burgess Meredith (when not training Rocky). We are on the subject of self sufficiency/preparedness, no? I think it would be prudent to NOT expect help during certain emergency circumstances. Why bring up neighborliness, and how could you know my views on the subject? I would imagine that prepared neighbors make very good ones. I sincerely hope, and am heartened when I see man listen to, and indeed act upon our "better Angels" (kindness, charity, mercy, patience, generosity, understanding, love). However, relying/depending on your neighbor (or the STATE) is unwise, unsound, and actually puts a burden on those very things, because (sadly), as we have seen those better Angels (your 9/11 example), we have also seen examples of (charitably put) "unfriendly Angels"...BAD neighbors...the kind who would crush Burgess Meredith's bifocals, then cook him up for supper...if the situation actually gets THAT bad...and it would have to be pretty bad to choke down BURGESS effing MEREDITH!
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Aug 21, 2016 12:00:23 GMT
No, we should rely on the state because we, the people, created it for that very purpose. And when I say "the state," I mean, in this order, your county or city, your state and finally the federal government. I think governments can be faulted by not fulfilling their obligations to the inhabitants and passing the responsibility to the next higher government, which means a unit further from the citizens. There's more I could say on the subject.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Aug 21, 2016 21:34:48 GMT
No, we should rely on the state because we, the people, created it for that very purpose. And when I say "the state," I mean, in this order, your county or city, your state and finally the federal government. I think governments can be faulted by not fulfilling their obligations to the inhabitants and passing the responsibility to the next higher government, which means a unit further from the citizens. There's more I could say on the subject. I'm addressing the "micro", preparation that each person can do for themselves and their household (which state agencies tell us to do, btw). Your pointing out the "macro" (govt. agencies) which I certainly hope perform the job they were designed and PAID for. However, you would clearly agree with me that only a naïve fool would blindly RELY on these services optimally functioning during a crisis. Heck, even in non emergency, under optimal conditions, "when seconds count the police are only minutes away". This is why we have flashlights and candles at the ready if the lights go out, extra wood for the fireplace, weapons (firearms, swords, knives, baseball bat, etc...) near the bed, even have locks on our doors...taking the concept further. Now, talking about the "macro", I wish more people were (evidently) like you and viewed/treated positions within the state with the noble idealism of an extension of the will of the citizenry. Sadly, the history books are filled with nightmares of failed idealism. You got me rambling, bluetrain...and that's a good thing, but I don't know how far down the rabbit-hole this forum would want us to go down, politically speaking, of course. I do love talking politics, religion, money...the OPPOSITE of what people say you shouldn't talk about in conversation (what the hell else is there to talk about...oh, swords). With me, it is NEVER an argument...just (sometimes heated) DEBATE. I can clearly tell there is more you could say on the subject...me to.
|
|