Ramses1079
Member
“Because I choose peace it does not mean I’ve forgotten how to be violent”
Posts: 666
|
Post by Ramses1079 on Jul 8, 2017 5:53:15 GMT
Ummm not unless it was a boomerang sword, or a bladed frisbee like Xena's chakram, that could be thrown. He was much further away from the 21-foot rule, so unless that guy had a flying carpet that broke Mach 1 he NEVER would have reached Indie before the shout sucker punched him in the gut.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Jul 8, 2017 7:21:02 GMT
Well let's consider it. Jones is a few paces away from a man with a drawn sword. He has a holstered revolver. All it would take for the swordsman is one step in, another step and then a step and cut. That's less ground to cover than the knife wielder in the average Tueller drill. And he's got a SWORD. I don't know where you're seeing him at more than 21 feet. If he'd been much more than that he would have been out of frame or too small to see clearly. See:  Plus, no real swordsman stands there and spins the blade around. You move in immediately and attack, especially if the other person is trying to draw. There is no bluff or bluster. That's true for JSA or HEMA. And we're assuming he'd be waiting several paces back instead of coming up from the crowd and just chopping him. There's a myth that the firearm immediately made swords useless. As we know, they coexisted in combat for hundreds of years. Bullets do not trump firearms. In fact, handguns are not the ideal weapon for contact distance. They have zero defensive capability, and there's a fair chance of missing even a few feet away. Thankfully there are very few people around who actually know how to use swords, and the vast majority of them are harmless sword geeks. Mostly harmless anyway. |
|
Ramses1079
Member
“Because I choose peace it does not mean I’ve forgotten how to be violent”
Posts: 666
|
Post by Ramses1079 on Jul 8, 2017 18:38:14 GMT
Go google " the 21ft rule.......and I've been a carpenter for as many years as I can remember. As such I HAD to be a good judge of distance, even JUST by looking. My livelihood depended on it. Jones is, at a MINIMUM 15ft away. According to the 21 ft rule, an officer can draw....and fire two rounds before an armed (with knife OR sword) suspect can reach them. Now that's even with a level 3 holster....who's retention requires a second or two to unfasten. Indie has NO retention on his holster, LESSENING his reaction AND shooting time. Maybe you should do a little research before you make assumptions like that. Besides, Arab swords men are "some" of the best in the world.....the "sword-twirling" is Hollywood! BUT in defense of sword use, GUNS run out of bullets eventually.....swords only rely on a swordsman's stamina 😉
|
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Jul 9, 2017 4:34:46 GMT
The Tueller drill shows that 21 feet is the maximum distance you can allow someone with a knife to reach you. A drawn sword is far more dangerous. www.policemag.com/channel/weapons/articles/2014/09/revisiting-the-21-foot-rule.aspxen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tueller_Drill If, as you say, Indiana is only FIFTEEN feet from the assailant, he's in deep trouble. Measure for a sword attack is surprisingly long. And unlike a knife you can attack at angles from the flank. The handgun offers pretty much no defense, so once in measure you are meat to be chopped unless you manage to shoot him enough to stop him. I really want to do this drill with someone to reenact the scene ;-) |
|
Ramses1079
Member
“Because I choose peace it does not mean I’ve forgotten how to be violent”
Posts: 666
|
Post by Ramses1079 on Jul 9, 2017 14:19:19 GMT
Funny you should mention "practice", cause in the police academy you DO get tested on the 21 ft scenario. You have 2.8 seconds to unholster (again, a level 3 retention holster) draw, and fire TWO shots mid torso. Join your local police academy and you can run the drill to your hearts content. Besides which, this Indiana Jones scene is "smoke and mirrors" anyways. Real life situations aren't as "flashy" and clear cut.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Jul 9, 2017 21:09:07 GMT
I have run the drill. I've owned probably fifty different handguns and put many thousands of rounds downrange. My name should give you a hint on that ;-) Twenty one feet is the edge of the danger zone. It's the distance you are in danger of getting stabbed if you fail to make your shots very quickly. That's the whole point of Tueller's drill. A guy with a knife at fifteen feet is real trouble. A swordsman at fifteen feet is almost within measure to hit you. One of the most interesting lessons I've learned from HEMA is how fast and effectively a trained swordsman can reach out and ring your bell. That's the problem with the scene from the film. An attacking swordsman will not stand and twirl, but immediately close to measure and combine the last step with the cut. If he's gotten there without getting stopped by bullets, the guy with the handgun will get sliced. But the scene is constantly referenced as some proof that swords are impotent against firearms.
|
|
Ramses1079
Member
“Because I choose peace it does not mean I’ve forgotten how to be violent”
Posts: 666
|
Post by Ramses1079 on Jul 9, 2017 22:42:55 GMT
Oh I'm not doubting YOUR abilities by any means, but Indy is a Professor for cripes sake.....how much time do u think he spent at the range (that didn't even exist in the 1940's)?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Jul 10, 2017 17:15:33 GMT
|
|
Ramses1079
Member
“Because I choose peace it does not mean I’ve forgotten how to be violent”
Posts: 666
|
Post by Ramses1079 on Jul 10, 2017 21:53:01 GMT
I too share this affliction 😉
|
|
|
|
Post by howler on Jul 10, 2017 22:56:30 GMT
I have run the drill. I've owned probably fifty different handguns and put many thousands of rounds downrange. My name should give you a hint on that ;-) Twenty one feet is the edge of the danger zone. It's the distance you are in danger of getting stabbed if you fail to make your shots very quickly. That's the whole point of Tueller's drill. A guy with a knife at fifteen feet is real trouble. A swordsman at fifteen feet is almost within measure to hit you. One of the most interesting lessons I've learned from HEMA is how fast and effectively a trained swordsman can reach out and ring your bell. That's the problem with the scene from the film. An attacking swordsman will not stand and twirl, but immediately close to measure and combine the last step with the cut. If he's gotten there without getting stopped by bullets, the guy with the handgun will get sliced. But the scene is constantly referenced as some proof that swords are impotent against firearms. I imagine a hop step lung using a rapier with a 42" blade (3 1/2ft) at 15 feet would be darn near instantaneous at putting the tip into a heart muscle, neck, or eyeball. Even with practice, you never really know how you would handle the fear and adrenaline dump with your handgun when dealing with a crazed person charging towards you with a blade. |
|
Zen_Hydra
Moderator
Born with a heart full of neutrality
Posts: 2,659 
|
Post by Zen_Hydra on Jul 11, 2017 15:25:43 GMT
It's not like their aren't a ton of accounts from the good 'ol days of empire where guns versus swords clashed on the regular. In both Africa and the subcontinent it wasn't uncommon to see mortally wounded men close distance and take out multiple riflemen with a sword in close quarters before expiring. It's pretty clear that you can't count of the 'stopping power' of even rifle rounds to protect you in within melee distance. Hell, a great many modern GSW accounts have people dropping only because film/television has conditioned them to do so. Fight/flight response is a crazy thing, and I know from personal experience how much adrenalin can mask pain and injury. There are very few injuries which can be counted on to immediately remove a threat, and even heart penetration isn't one of them. There are many accounts of duelists who had their heart perforated and remained on their feet for some time afterward (there was even one account of a gentleman who ran home and died about 30 minutes after being run through the heart).
|
|
Ramses1079
Member
“Because I choose peace it does not mean I’ve forgotten how to be violent”
Posts: 666
|
Post by Ramses1079 on Jul 11, 2017 22:18:34 GMT
Well, not sure if you guys "would" remember this, but in the mid 1980's the FBI went from 9mm to .40 cause of a shootout in Miami where a suspect high on PCP and about 6 other drugs was shot 10+ times and STILL managed to kill two local cops. NOW they're switching BACK to 9mm cause the .40 hurts their poor little wrists. Well gentlemen, a LARGE caliber bullet DOES in fact "put down" anyone no matter the distance. Reason why my carry gun is a 10mm. Sword or not, walking away from THAT hollow point ain't happening. I agree that across history men in a "berserker" rage" or fueled by adrenaline have shrugged off "deathblows" that would have felled OTHER, lesser men. BUT nowadays Ammo is tested on MASSIVE sides of beef and ballistics gel. The ballistics prove that no matter how " tough" or "heroic" someone is (sword or not) you get hit by MODERN bullets and no other weapon, but a gun, would save your life.
|
|
|
|
Post by Croccifixio on Jul 12, 2017 0:44:04 GMT
A few points I'd love to add to this discussion gentlemen (long abandoned the thread but since the recent players are more reasonable)...
1. Part of the self-defense training I've witness in respect of the 21 foot rule is that you backpedal while drawing to increase the distance. Even if the assailant is blindingly fast, this will allow me to put at least one or two bullets into his center of mass which will theoretically slow him down, enough so I can parry his attacks with a hand while continuing to fire.
On the other hand
2. The stories of the .45 being made due to the Moro insurgency (which contains plenty of truth but also a lot of mythologizing, since most of the incidents of a sword wielding Moro warrior called a Juramentado taking down gun-wielding american soldiers were actually of Christian Pulajanes cultists) does highlight one important fact: there is no guarantee that bullets will put a swordsman down. Indeed, if you do a bit of research on Panglima Hassan, it took 33 bullets (allegedly 32 Krag bullets and 1 45 Colt) to finally kill him. So yeah if you're carrying a small round you really cannot depend on it to take down a blade-wielding fanatic/warrior. Which is why hand to hand CQC skills are STILL important and still being trained by law enforcement and military, especially those who regularly see action.
|
|
Ramses1079
Member
“Because I choose peace it does not mean I’ve forgotten how to be violent”
Posts: 666
|
Post by Ramses1079 on Jul 12, 2017 0:56:30 GMT
ABSOLUTELY right Crocc (forgot your background for a minute)! That's what I was saying........smaller calibers are literally a waste of $$$ and a waste of your life if being used for self-defense. BUT recent versions of the 9mm round made here in the U.S actually have them "penetrating" better than some higher caliber bullets. That's why I "carry" the 10mm when .I'm out with my family, but rely on some NASTY 9mm hollow points for home defense (or my Mossberg). To go along with what you said, sometimes facts get mythologized, on BOTH sides of the conflict. On the swordsmans side, it took 50rounds to take down their "strongest" warrior (not the Hassan story), or the gun wielding side "I took him down barely aiming from 700 paces" and vwalla you have "battlefield legends!" Good to see you post Crocc! 😉
|
|
Ramses1079
Member
“Because I choose peace it does not mean I’ve forgotten how to be violent”
Posts: 666
|
Post by Ramses1079 on Jul 12, 2017 1:01:42 GMT
Back to the video of Indiana Jones, I'll concede that he's shooting a .38 caliber round, and "Hollywood Style" doesn't even aim while firing. Classic Movie "Guy with the gun ALWAYS wins.....Even though Sean Connory's classic line in the Untouchables still slays me: "Just like a (insert race I will EXCLUDE) to bring a knife to a gunfight!"
|
|
|
|
Post by Croccifixio on Jul 12, 2017 4:11:03 GMT
Yeah I think 9mm penetrates better cause it's a faster bullet. In my workplace, the security are equipped with M16/M4 rifles and 9mm pistols, though some of them choose to carry personal 45 or 40 caliber sidearms.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Jul 12, 2017 19:47:23 GMT
It's the ancient argument! Slow and big vs. fast and small. I've got a collection of articles from gun rags in the earl 20th century that include these disputes. Back then it was Charles Newton who was shredding the fps limits with his crazy .250-3000 and other inventions. A generation later it was the epic brawl between Elmer Keith and Jack O'Conner. Each side has good points. And for *rifles* used at distance, I think speed is the most critical factor. For self defense out of handguns, the temporary cavity tends to be smaller and less explosive even with fast rounds. The key is to make two big holes and two ways for blood to leave and the attacker to be forced down from shock (the physical kind from a drop in blood pressure, not the psychological). This has also led me to favor shotgun slugs over shot for close range defense. I don't agree with the notion of an "energy dump," since again that's really related to the kind of temporary cavity you can get from a high velocity rifle. A bullet that stops half way through has failed to complete its mission. The point of an expanding round is not to air brake, but to create a large exit wound for blood loss. If the attacker just has a big hole inside, the body can fill up with blood without a loss of pressure until it's too late for you. This is why a lot of attackers seem to be able to soak up many rounds from police high caps.
|
|
|
|
Post by howler on Jul 13, 2017 8:24:18 GMT
It's the ancient argument! Slow and big vs. fast and small. I've got a collection of articles from gun rags in the earl 20th century that include these disputes. Back then it was Charles Newton who was shredding the fps limits with his crazy .250-3000 and other inventions. A generation later it was the epic brawl between Elmer Keith and Jack O'Conner. Each side has good points. And for *rifles* used at distance, I think speed is the most critical factor. For self defense out of handguns, the temporary cavity tends to be smaller and less explosive even with fast rounds. The key is to make two big holes and two ways for blood to leave and the attacker to be forced down from shock (the physical kind from a drop in blood pressure, not the psychological). This has also led me to favor shotgun slugs over shot for close range defense. I don't agree with the notion of an "energy dump," since again that's really related to the kind of temporary cavity you can get from a high velocity rifle. A bullet that stops half way through has failed to complete its mission. The point of an expanding round is not to air brake, but to create a large exit wound for blood loss. If the attacker just has a big hole inside, the body can fill up with blood without a loss of pressure until it's too late for you. This is why a lot of attackers seem to be able to soak up many rounds from police high caps. A rather complicated subject, but we do see a lot of general answers that have emerged over the years. The most powerful round one can handle effectively is the answer, though I admit one can debate "effective handling. A forty is (in the 180 grain range) pretty good when dealing with outside individuals in or around cars (and automobile glass). You want to put the energy into the bad guy without wasting it on the wall behind him. The kinetic energy principle does work, as shown by troopers using the .357 magnum (125 grain) in the early days. When passing through a nerve plexus, the stretching of the nerve membranes disrupts the membranes potential and causes a temporary stunning effect, like a boxers punch to the solar plexus, baton or stun bags. The thing is, while this (temporary incapacitation) is a nice bonus, it cannot be relied on. You must have adequate penetration through clothing first, with expansion and other effects being next on the list. It is energy that makes the bullet move, penetrate, expand, stretch nerve membranes, etc... If you shoot a man with a .44 magnum, most of the energy will be wasted outside the person shot. If you shoot a man with a .223 (same energy as a .44) with the right round, you can expend all that energy in roughly 14" of human flesh, creating a football sized area of destroyed flesh in a human torso (instant death), which explains why those little .22 rounds are so monstrous. |
|
|
|
Post by Dalaran1991 on Jul 21, 2017 8:20:27 GMT
LOL I didnt know the thread devolved into knife vs gun!
Anyway I was discussing dual wielding katana / tachi against the longsword opponent. I tried using the traditional daisho waki / katana against him. It didn't work, or it only works if I'm using the katana in the left hand and the wakizashi in the right hand.
So what happens is the classic argument why it's better to have a longer weapon than two short weapons. If I do the classic niten stance with wakizashi in my left hand, that means the wakizashi is the main blocking weapon, since my opponent is right handed and most attacks come from my left (his right). Well, a wakizashi is NOT a parrying dagger, not by a long long shot. The much shorter length plus the lack of a handguard just mean you get chop on the hand/arm A LOT. And the waki simply doesnt have the proper weight/leverage to block a cut from a longsword.
So I switched to blocking with my bokken in my left hand and that makes thing a lot better, except it strains the wrist a bit. The problem? The waki can not reach the opponent to deliver a strike. Already I have to always be on the offense to get close inside the longsword guard, and its difficult with a katana. It's a lot trickier with a waki.
Solution: why not try dual wielding katana?
My sensei has been showing us some dual katana katas lately. Funny that in my shinkendo dojo niten is done with 2 katanas and not daisho. As my Sensei quoted the Book of five rings: if you can not beat him with one sword, try beating him with 2 swords.
Now at first I was skeptical about how unwieldy would dual katana wielding be. Then I realized that since I was using my katana in my left hand to block anyway, and it wasn't that hard, just take some getting used to. I can certainly right-hand my bokken without problem. So, it's certainly not as unwieldy as it might seem.
The trick with dual wielding seems to always be in a cross guard, as in always forming a triangle with your blade, in the center and no higher than chudan (middle-guard) In the hundreds of strikes against my Sensei, the prevailing strategy is this: blocking AND counter attacking must be simultaneous. It's the same old principle in kenjutsu but with two swords it's a lot more obvious.
So, opponent throw a cut, you lunge in and raise your left to block while also thrusting with the right at the same time. If he disengages or blocks, your (blocking) hand was already in a position to pressure him. And since you have a lot more room than with a waki you are generally safe. Suddenly the initiative is on you, assuming you can keep the pressure on as you are not as quick as you are when you two-hand a katana.
I was skeptical about blocking heavier strike from the longsword, but if you follow the strategy you dont have to block as much. Unlike with a shield, while dual-wielding you have similar reach with both weapons (one will always be shorter depending on which guard), so either the opponent can not throw heavy cuts if you keep the pressure on him, or you can use the x-block, stepping to the side while sliding the 2nd sword in to attack.
In the dojo it works pretty well against a jo and a bo. I'll grab another bokken and see how it goes for the next sparring session.
Still it would be a lot better if the katana had a proper guard. I cannot imagine while nobody thought about putting a bigger guard on the katana? Assuming two weapons are equal the ones with guard are awlays safer.
Given that kenjutsu have quick agrresive cuts, samurais must have lost a lot of fingers back in the day.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kiyoshi on Jul 21, 2017 8:47:50 GMT
If I do the classic niten stance with wakizashi in my left hand, that means the wakizashi is the main blocking weapon, since my opponent is right handed and most attacks come from my left (his right). Well, a wakizashi is NOT a parrying dagger, not by a long long shot. The much shorter length plus the lack of a handguard just mean you get chop on the hand/arm A LOT. And the waki simply doesnt have the proper weight/leverage to block a cut from a longsword. I have to disagree some here. The wakizashi can take a block from a longsword. Using the wakizashi is both offensive and defensive. It isn't dedicated to either. Just because he is right handed, it doesn't mean he can't attack from the left and hit your right side. The advantage to a long and short is that you can use the waki at close range in ways a longer sword can't. It is discussed (somewhat) in depth in this video. I don't really agree with everything they say here, but they make some good points. I have to disagree here on a semantic level. It is difficult to get in on a defensive guard, regardless of the weapon. If your opponent is a good counter attacker, you will have trouble even if his weapon is shorter. I think you are focusing too much on the weapon and too little on the opponent. Your weapon doesn't win a fight. A katana is just a slightly shorter piece of sharp metal. The difference between the two is very far from insurmountable. If length is all that mattered, we'd all be using long hozoin spears or pikes or nagamaki or somthing. As for the strain on the wrist, possibly your wrist posture on your hand is not good or the sword is too heavy, making the posture difficult. I've not had any real issues with wrist strains using a katana one handed. Maybe because I'm an iai guy originally so my wrists are pretty strong from those repetitive motions. This is a common posture in niten as well. It is the forward attitude. It is a solid stance/strategy against a single opponent. The use is, as you stated, simultaneous (or as close as possible) attack and counter. This is also done in niten. If your opponent's attack is stopped and you keep pressure, this is part of niten's holding down a pillow. As your apply pressure, you use the pressure and your reading to stop the opponent from recovering and not allow them to retaliate. I assume it has something to do with carrying them being cumbersome if the guards were bigger? That is not an informed guess, just personal experience that two swords with regular tsuba is bad enough in your belt, I couldn't imaging larger ones without some kind of dedicated suspended holster similar to euro ones. |
|
