|
Post by wildman on Dec 12, 2016 23:34:01 GMT
So up front I will admit that I don't know that much about swords the little bit of blade training I have done had been knife and tomahawk fighting but I am wondering is there any time that any of you would take a sword over a pistol in a fight I don't doubt that it could be deadly with a person that knows what they are doing but do they have anything over a pistol
|
|
|
Post by bloodwraith on Dec 12, 2016 23:56:39 GMT
Well they don't run out of bullets so that is one thing but they were also designed for another time. The pistol if you have it in hand and have knowledge of how to use it is superior to a sword in just about every circumstance except in the circumstance where you need to actually cut something. In a situation where you need to silently kill someone and your pistol doesn't have a silencer the sword is superior.
|
|
stormmaster
Member
I like viking/migration era swords
Posts: 7,647
|
Post by stormmaster on Dec 13, 2016 0:08:01 GMT
Throw the pommel at the gunman, end him rightly. But really any semi competent gunman would beat a swordsman 9 out of 10 times if the swordsman is farther then 10 feet away, close range could be different tho.
swords give u style points tho so that balances it out and dont need ammo
|
|
|
Post by Faldarin on Dec 13, 2016 0:18:50 GMT
With caveats about actual violence... Style. You have style over the pistol user in most cases. That's about it. Seriously though- Range, the situation, and skill of both combatants would matter a whole lot. Over a VERY short distance, an edged weapon already at the ready (or very near to ready) is going to have an advantage against someone who has their pistol holstered. If they've already drawn and have a bead however - well... not so great. If you want some real world testing... it's only a very specific circumstance, but entertaining, the Mythbusters did Knife to a Gunfight some time ago: (Pistol holstered only) Pretty much what I mentioned, and the video's worth a watch for a running and screaming, knifewielding Jamie Hyneman.
|
|
|
Post by pellius on Dec 13, 2016 0:27:48 GMT
There is no weapon-choosing situation I can think of where I would choose a sword over a gun.
Having said that, a gun (even a pistol) is like any other weapon - it has an ideal range, a practical range and an impractical range. IMO, somewhere around boxing range is the inner limit to the practical range of a pistol. I'm not referring to drawing, target acquisition, decision to shoot, reaction time, or anything else other than the actual minimum range of practical usefulness to put a round on target.
Inside that range, I think a one-hand sword (or knife) is a more useful weapon.
Of course, a gun can be used to keep an adversary out of that range. Also, I am never actually armed with a sword.
|
|
|
Post by leviathansteak on Dec 13, 2016 1:10:21 GMT
Well if you mean a modern context, say, self defense, a pistol is going to be advantageous in almost every way over a sword. Unless the local law dictates that firearms are inaccessible to you, in which case a sword could have some use.
Historically, a sword was used as backup to pistols in case of ammunition being expended or failure of the gun. Also consider that it will be far easier to parry an opponent's melee weapon with a sword than a pistol
|
|
|
Post by wildman on Dec 13, 2016 1:24:50 GMT
The reason I was wondering was isaw a show about Filipino special forces that liked a short sword over a handgun for close in work and that just sounded string to me
|
|
|
Post by wildman on Dec 13, 2016 1:26:51 GMT
The reason I was wondering was isaw a show about Filipino special forces that liked a short sword over a handgun for close in work and that just sounded string to me
|
|
|
Post by Verity on Dec 13, 2016 1:37:44 GMT
Any cop will tell you they would rather be shot than cut... a sword wound (especially a chop or sweeping cut) will create larger tissue damage and arterial or vein severing than the temporary and permanent wound cavity of your average handgun rounds.
That said. Range is a big deal and the firearm supplanted the sword for this very reason. At most self defense situational ranges a handgun is going to beat the sword...
There ARE some VERY narrow situations a blade would be ideal but that is like less than 2 feet. And in this case a knife would give you better control and retention than a sword (even a short sword).
Save the swords for the fun factor and the historical case and dojo or training halls. Leave self defense to the firearm. This is why history begat them.
|
|
|
Post by bloodwraith on Dec 13, 2016 1:47:21 GMT
The reason I was wondering was isaw a show about Filipino special forces that liked a short sword over a handgun for close in work and that just sounded string to me Think you'll find that they prefer a shortsword, specifically the ginunting. over a gun because of the conditions they fight in. A sword is much more useful in a jungle setting where you have limited visibility and so could not effectively engage with a pistol. Also using it to cut through vines and brush. Also are you asking about swords or knives in this case? A knife is effective within 30 ft of an assailant with a pistol provided the pistol is not drawn and aimed. I would select a knife over a gun for concealment and the fact that I have training and access to knives.
|
|
stormmaster
Member
I like viking/migration era swords
Posts: 7,647
|
Post by stormmaster on Dec 13, 2016 2:04:11 GMT
There is no weapon-choosing situation I can think of where I would choose a sword over a gun. Having said that, a gun (even a pistol) is like any other weapon - it has an ideal range, a practical range and an impractical range. IMO, somewhere around boxing range is the inner limit to the practical range of a pistol. I'm not referring to drawing, target acquisition, decision to shoot, reaction time, or anything else other than the actual minimum range of practical usefulness to put a round on target. Inside that range, I think a one-hand sword (or knife) is a more useful weapon. Of course, a gun can be used to keep an adversary out of that range. Also, I am never actually armed with a sword. well i can think of one, where the guy would have to reload and im right next to him with a sword, or if i have a shield that can block bullets then having a sword might be viable, this is all speculation and circumstance tho
|
|
|
Post by wildman on Dec 13, 2016 2:37:00 GMT
I know that knives can be really dangerous because the two guys that learned me most of what I know about staying alive in a danger place my dad and grandpa always told me don't take chances with a man that has a knife just because you have a gun it just surprised me to hear about someone still using a short sword but I guess it could make sense in a place like that
|
|
|
Post by pellius on Dec 13, 2016 3:04:30 GMT
stormmaster- sorry, I can't do a proper quote on an iPhone.
With respect, even in the situation you described, if I was choosing the weapon (as per the OP question) to put in your hands while I reloaded, I would still pick a gun for you; whether you had a (riot/breaching?) shield or not.
That's just my opinion, though.
|
|
pgandy
Moderator
Senior Forumite
Posts: 10,296
|
Post by pgandy on Dec 13, 2016 3:44:09 GMT
During WWII Grand Master Leo Giron in the Philippines used a sword as did the other two members of the team to combat the Japanese although the US had provided them with a M1 Garands and M1911 pistols. The blade was the weapon of choice.
There was an instance in Lebanon during the ‘70s, three men with scimitars attacked a British platoon taking out 17 members. The Brits were armed with the FN rifle, standard issue of the time.
In an apartment building one does not have to worry about the shot penetrating wall hitting people in an adjacent room, possibly a family member.
In some sections of the world firearms are extremely hard to come by while knives, especially machetes, are not.
|
|
|
Post by pellius on Dec 13, 2016 4:25:38 GMT
pgandy - I would imagine if you spent your entire life studying, handling, practicing and training with a bladed weapon, it would make good sense to use that weapon as your go-to choice. Skilled practitioners of bladed weapon fighting systems are truly awesome to behold.
Growing up in my neck of the woods, guns were everywhere and we all learned shooting proficiency and safety from a very early age.
It's a good point and a genuine concern regarding bullets passing thru walls; especially interior walls. In a home defense scenario, my personal choice of weapon would still be a handgun. In such an environment, accuracy and precision are critical.
|
|
|
Post by legacyofthesword on Dec 13, 2016 4:58:56 GMT
In a very close-quarters, chaotic fight... I think I'd rather have a short-sword or large knife over a pistol. A blade can't run out of ammo, malfunction (accidentally drop mag, jam, etc.), plus, a blade is simpler to use. If someone grabs your gun barrel, you're in trouble; if someone grabs your sword or knife blade, they're in trouble. In order to damage someone with a pistol, you have to keep the barrel lined up with your opponent's body while simultaneously pulling the trigger; in order to damage someone with a blade, all you have to do is move the edges against their body. If I was in a fairly open area with decent visibility, I'd go for the pistol and hope I could track and shoot a running target fast enough. But I'd still want a large knife as back-up. A knife will only be an option if you are close to your opponent. If they already have a gun out, and you are a fair distance away, you're in bad spot.
|
|
stormmaster
Member
I like viking/migration era swords
Posts: 7,647
|
Post by stormmaster on Dec 13, 2016 5:16:51 GMT
In a very close-quarters, chaotic fight... I think I'd rather have a short-sword or large knife over a pistol. A blade can't run out of ammo, malfunction (accidentally drop mag, jam, etc.), plus, a blade is simpler to use. If someone grabs your gun barrel, you're in trouble; if someone grabs your sword or knife blade, they're in trouble. In order to damage someone with a pistol, you have to keep the barrel lined up with your opponent's body while simultaneously pulling the trigger; in order to damage someone with a blade, all you have to do is move the edges against their body. If I was in a fairly open area with decent visibility, I'd go for the pistol and hope I could track and shoot a running target fast enough. But I'd still want a large knife as back-up. A knife will only be an option if you are close to your opponent. If they already have a gun out, and you are a fair distance away, you're in bad spot. word even if the blade breaks in half in the middle for whatever reason, still can end someone
|
|
|
Post by Derzis on Dec 14, 2016 14:14:55 GMT
I would never chose a sword over a gun. Is not the distance that counts as long as you have bullets.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Dec 14, 2016 20:22:40 GMT
I would never chose a sword over a gun. Is not the distance that counts as long as you have bullets. This may well be answered by the type of gun and sword used. Some guns will cut a man in half with a single shot. And to a lesser degree, same with a sword, if at arms length, with a proper design, you can remove head from shoulders. At distance, the firearm RULES. At arms length, with powerful gun, you still only have to pull a trigger.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Dec 15, 2016 21:19:32 GMT
A hammerless .44 above any blade almost any time I can think of. With proper expanding round, and power level adjusted for level of penetration so you don't expend all your kinetic energy on the wall behind the bad guy...no doubt your right.
|
|