|
Post by Lord Newport on Jan 10, 2024 18:35:41 GMT
One of my hero's; a recent CCW holder self defence videos...Guy is a CCW holder and keeps his beer close as he deals with a would be robber...Its all about priorities!
|
|
|
Post by mrstabby on Jan 10, 2024 18:42:51 GMT
One of my hero's; a recent CCW holder self defence videos...Guy is a CCW holder and keeps his beer close as he deals with a would be robber...Its all about priorities! 1 - beer 2 - beer 3 - beer 4 - eff up a guy with one hand 5 - beer
Also looks like a small calibre gun, but the other guy only had a box cutter, the .22lr of knives.
|
|
|
Post by izzy on Jan 10, 2024 21:02:19 GMT
Found another clip that might be interesting because a knife is used.
The guy gets stabbed a bazillion times and still gets away, at least until he shows up at the hospital in critical condition. That's exactly why I don't think blades are a good choice. I mean if you don't have anything else, it's better than nothing. I don't think a sword will make that big of a difference in a small room, you should be prepared to be stabbing, fighting and slashing for a while. A few minutes at the least.
Looks like 12 to 13 stabs to me, knife looks small to mid sized or maybe it just looks smaller in the video, they are so lucky the guy with the gun ran instead of shooting. The lady for all her courage mostly stabbed in the torso...the neck or groin would have been better. But whatever she did it worked out for the best as they ran away, no innocents seriously hurt.
|
|
|
Post by Tiers1 on Jan 15, 2024 3:00:39 GMT
Thanks to all who continue to contribute to this thread. Useful info. The knife vid was interesting; In a discussion with Izzy about quick stoppages of an attacker we also happened upon a digression on how well would a sword perform as per stopping an attacker quickly. Throughout all my consideration of swords over the years I have collected them, I never really thought about the specific topic of how immediately decisive they were or weren't... To make a long story short, upon consideration of what I extant info I have , I presume that swords are quite capable of dropping an attacker after a few minutes of blood loss or system failure, but probably not too good at dropping a determined attacker very quickly, especially if they have a few layers of clothing on. I remember some Matt Easton vids where it seemed like the point was to disable the attacker first before looking to definitively end the engagement...with cuts aimed at fingers and shoulders and the like. I have a bunch of thoughts on the topic but alas I am typing on a phone and too lazy to write it all down. Suffice to say that whether cutting or thrusting, I feel there is a good chance that a reasonably clothed and determined attacker in many cases would need to be struck a bunch of times to stop their aggression if the swords edge didn't meet the head, neck, or get lucky with an artery; and it apparently isn't to easy to get the head/neck of a swordsperson with some training. This is neither here nor their so forgive me my extreme digression, but years ago there were a couple of threads I enjoyed alot about what swords would be the best choice for supernatural critters/monsters. As a fantasy nerd I couldn't help myself. However, in all honesty, swords would probably be a terrible weapon for the aforementioned. If your unfriendly neighborhood human crackfiend in a flannel and leather jacket would require 10 blows to bring down, I presume you wouldn't want to field your steel sword against a werewolf
|
|
|
Post by izzy on Jan 16, 2024 8:27:10 GMT
Thanks to all who continue to contribute to this thread. Useful info. The knife vid was interesting; In a discussion with Izzy about quick stoppages of an attacker we also happened upon a digression on how well would a sword perform as per stopping an attacker quickly. Throughout all my consideration of swords over the years I have collected them, I never really thought about the specific topic of how immediately decisive they were or weren't... To make a long story short, upon consideration of what I extant info I have , I presume that swords are quite capable of dropping an attacker after a few minutes of blood loss or system failure, but probably not too good at dropping a determined attacker very quickly, especially if they have a few layers of clothing on. I remember some Matt Easton vids where it seemed like the point was to disable the attacker first before looking to definitively end the engagement...with cuts aimed at fingers and shoulders and the like. I have a bunch of thoughts on the topic but alas I am typing on a phone and too lazy to write it all down. Suffice to say that whether cutting or thrusting, I feel there is a good chance that a reasonably clothed and determined attacker in many cases would need to be struck a bunch of times to stop their aggression if the swords edge didn't meet the head, neck, or get lucky with an artery; and it apparently isn't to easy to get the head/neck of a swordsperson with some training. This is neither here nor their so forgive me my extreme digression, but years ago there were a couple of threads I enjoyed alot about what swords would be the best choice for supernatural critters/monsters. As a fantasy nerd I couldn't help myself. However, in all honesty, swords would probably be a terrible weapon for the aforementioned. If your unfriendly neighborhood human crackfiend in a flannel and leather jacket would require 10 blows to bring down, I presume you wouldn't want to field your steel sword against a werewolf Yes, with a sword or Knife the "quickest" incapacitation is hitting/ cutting vitals in the neck, a kidney stab, or a thrust to "the 5th rib" to the heart if one is expert in that, and then hoping the attacker(s) do not have a firearm (!). None in theory would be quicker than a handgun with good placement. Once we get to Shotguns with buckshot in SD use, we up the chances to incapacitate quicker. A rifle or Carbine is good for range, and ability to carry more ammunition, but that is not generally a strict home defense issue, unless one lives in a rural area.
That being said, and a little off topic, it's quite common in wartime situations for soldiers to run out of ammunition, and a short sword could be very handy to acquire an enemy's kit if one can get close enough. If both sides run out of ammunition, it would be a great advantage to have a sword. If one can avoid the landmines, artillery, drones, etc., hand to hand combat is still a "thing", even in eastern Europe right now.
In fantasy or futuristic situations, I think it's proper to think of spears / swords and armor, in my body of knowledge that is where we are headed globally. The world is closer than ever to a World War where specialized EMP weapons, and other exchanges of fissile material will eventually set humanity back 1000 years at best. Assuming one survives the initial multiple attacks, the resulting meltdowns of Nuclear plants will poison the land in targeted places for eons. ( They need months of power to shut down and cool fuel rods, 3 weeks of fuel won't cut it). Survivors will have to migrate or die.
|
|
|
Post by mrstabby on Jan 16, 2024 9:14:20 GMT
Incapacitation time due to blood loss is in the minutes. Nothing for the faint-hearted. Not at all like in the movies where the hero strikes the bad guy once in the shoulder and he goes down, but that's nothing new. The stopping power of bullets comes down to how many nerve endings they can damage on their way, more nerves involved means the body is more likely to shut down. A stab wound isn't something you will feel in the moment as something that is dangerous, not that someone that has more meth than blood in the body will feel a bullet either....
I have recently seen people advertising repeating pistol crossbows for home defense where you can't get a pistol. I think that's a very bad idea, even worse than swords. Not that they can not be deadly, but I think they would give people a false sense of safety - those things are waaaay less deadlly, accurate or fast shooting than a pistol. What do you guess, how many shots can you loose before someone with a knife closes the distance of one room? 1, maybe 2? Unless you hit a really good headshot the first shot, you are dead too (and even a headshot with these probably isn't a 100% lights out)! People can survive a multitude of arrow hits since they don't rip surrounding tissues like bullets and can partly seal the wound with the shaft. I don't know, just seems like a bad idea, but I am ready to see what you think.
|
|
|
Post by izzy on Jan 16, 2024 9:24:47 GMT
Incapacitation time due to blood loss is in the minutes. Nothing for the faint-hearted. Not at all like in the movies where the hero strikes the bad guy once in the shoulder and he goes down, but that's nothing new. The stopping power of bullets comes down to how many nerve endings they can damage on their way, more nerves involved means the body is more likely to shut down. A stab wound isn't something you will feel in the moment as something that is dangerous, not that someone that has more meth than blood in the body will feel a bullet either.... I have recently seen people advertising repeating pistol crossbows for home defense where you can't get a pistol. I think that's a very bad idea, even worse than swords. Not that they can not be deadly, but I think they would give people a false sense of safety - those things are waaaay less deadlly, accurate or fast shooting than a pistol. What do you guess, how many shots can you loose before someone with a knife closes the distance of one room? 1, maybe 2? Unless you hit a really good headshot the first shot, you are dead too (and even a headshot with these probably isn't a 100% lights out)! People can survive a multitude of arrow hits since they don't rip surrounding tissues like bullets and can partly seal the wound with the shaft. I don't know, just seems like a bad idea, but I am ready to see what you think. Arrows have always been best as a "stand off" weapon, wounding from a far range, or far enough range that the enemy can't reach you very quickly. They were usually backed up by a sword.
Many many cases are very well documented where a knife attacker gets their stabs in before a police/ army/ civilian can neutralize the threat with a firearm, and they don't always survive the attack...just look up stabbings in the old city of Jerusalem, they happen all the time. In a crowded places where you don't know just don't know who will attack you, one is very vulnerable to knife attack. Same could be in a bar/ pub / "discotec", or any other crowded venue.
You advocated the Hip shot, and that is the best, especially where crowds are...if we stick with that, and one is not taken by total surprise, one has the odds in their favor.
|
|
|
Post by mrstabby on Jan 16, 2024 10:09:39 GMT
Incapacitation time due to blood loss is in the minutes. Nothing for the faint-hearted. Not at all like in the movies where the hero strikes the bad guy once in the shoulder and he goes down, but that's nothing new. The stopping power of bullets comes down to how many nerve endings they can damage on their way, more nerves involved means the body is more likely to shut down. A stab wound isn't something you will feel in the moment as something that is dangerous, not that someone that has more meth than blood in the body will feel a bullet either.... I have recently seen people advertising repeating pistol crossbows for home defense where you can't get a pistol. I think that's a very bad idea, even worse than swords. Not that they can not be deadly, but I think they would give people a false sense of safety - those things are waaaay less deadlly, accurate or fast shooting than a pistol. What do you guess, how many shots can you loose before someone with a knife closes the distance of one room? 1, maybe 2? Unless you hit a really good headshot the first shot, you are dead too (and even a headshot with these probably isn't a 100% lights out)! People can survive a multitude of arrow hits since they don't rip surrounding tissues like bullets and can partly seal the wound with the shaft. I don't know, just seems like a bad idea, but I am ready to see what you think. Arrows have always been best as a "stand off" weapon, wounding from a far range, or far enough range that the enemy can't reach you very quickly. They were usually backed up by a sword.
Many many cases are very well documented where a knife attacker gets their stabs in before a police/ army/ civilian can neutralize the threat with a firearm, and they don't always survive the attack...just look up stabbings in the old city of Jerusalem, they happen all the time. In a crowded places where you don't know just don't know who will attack you, one is very vulnerable to knife attack. Same could be in a bar/ pub / "discotec", or any other crowded venue.
You advocated the Hip shot, and that is the best, especially where crowds are...if we stick with that, and one is not taken by total surprise, one has the odds in their favor.
Here is a nice video about knive attacks. Remember: Those people are trained self defense experts.
I know even a pistol can be "not good enough" against a fast knife, but advertising these repeating crossbows for self defense just seems like a recipe for disaster. Maybe with an aditional blade, but not stand alone - especially when the laws restricting firearms for lawful citizens don't work on the bad guys, which seems the case in some states now. Just saw a shootout where the thugs rolled up with 50rd drum mags which were illegal in the state and the defender had his 12-15 shot 9mm (don't know what it was, but he shot at least 12 times)....
As a side note I wonder if a bolt/arrow to the hip would also drop people. I don't think there would be enough nerves or muscles involved to restrict movement.
|
|
|
Post by izzy on Jan 16, 2024 14:15:38 GMT
Arrows have always been best as a "stand off" weapon, wounding from a far range, or far enough range that the enemy can't reach you very quickly. They were usually backed up by a sword.
Many many cases are very well documented where a knife attacker gets their stabs in before a police/ army/ civilian can neutralize the threat with a firearm, and they don't always survive the attack...just look up stabbings in the old city of Jerusalem, they happen all the time. In a crowded places where you don't know just don't know who will attack you, one is very vulnerable to knife attack. Same could be in a bar/ pub / "discotec", or any other crowded venue.
You advocated the Hip shot, and that is the best, especially where crowds are...if we stick with that, and one is not taken by total surprise, one has the odds in their favor.
Here is a nice video about knive attacks. Remember: Those people are trained self defense experts.
I know even a pistol can be "not good enough" against a fast knife, but advertising these repeating crossbows for self defense just seems like a recipe for disaster. Maybe with an aditional blade, but not stand alone - especially when the laws restricting firearms for lawful citizens don't work on the bad guys, which seems the case in some states now. Just saw a shootout where the thugs rolled up with 50rd drum mags which were illegal in the state and the defender had his 12-15 shot 9mm (don't know what it was, but he shot at least 12 times)....
As a side note I wonder if a bolt/arrow to the hip would also drop people. I don't think there would be enough nerves or muscles involved to restrict movement.
A good heavy broad head (arrowhead) can go through deer bone and shoulder with a good compound bow, it does depend on the set up:
There are all sorts of crossbows, including ones that shoot steel balls, but you still have to cock it for each shot, it likely wont penetrate much, but it would put a hurt on someone:
About the "magazine" type crossbows, like what the Chinese have used for hundreds of years...they are limited in bolt head selection...but the heads they do use look pretty wicked....but may be too light to crush bone?
Speaking of magazine fed crossbows, check this one out, looks very modern:
Pistol crossbows are not exactly a toy, but may lack power compared to larger ones...there are exceptions:
Would I trust a bow/ crossbow to defend my home against unknown odds? Not unless I had no other choice...I like to keep things simple, a short sword requires less maintenance than a crossbow, and the last thing I would want to be doing if there was a break in would be to be fumbling for bolts, or have to cock for every shot...even with assisted cocking it could be 40lb to pull each time for ones with enough power...what if I was sick in bed, or just no feeling well?
Nope, I would grab a couple of Gladii if I did not have a fire arm and charge the bastardos.
Edit: Just to add while I have bows, I do not have a crossbow at this time.
|
|
howler
Member
Posts: 5,254
Member is Online
|
Post by howler on Jan 16, 2024 17:27:52 GMT
Thanks to all who continue to contribute to this thread. Useful info. The knife vid was interesting; In a discussion with Izzy about quick stoppages of an attacker we also happened upon a digression on how well would a sword perform as per stopping an attacker quickly. Throughout all my consideration of swords over the years I have collected them, I never really thought about the specific topic of how immediately decisive they were or weren't... To make a long story short, upon consideration of what I extant info I have , I presume that swords are quite capable of dropping an attacker after a few minutes of blood loss or system failure, but probably not too good at dropping a determined attacker very quickly, especially if they have a few layers of clothing on. I remember some Matt Easton vids where it seemed like the point was to disable the attacker first before looking to definitively end the engagement...with cuts aimed at fingers and shoulders and the like. I have a bunch of thoughts on the topic but alas I am typing on a phone and too lazy to write it all down. Suffice to say that whether cutting or thrusting, I feel there is a good chance that a reasonably clothed and determined attacker in many cases would need to be struck a bunch of times to stop their aggression if the swords edge didn't meet the head, neck, or get lucky with an artery; and it apparently isn't to easy to get the head/neck of a swordsperson with some training. This is neither here nor their so forgive me my extreme digression, but years ago there were a couple of threads I enjoyed alot about what swords would be the best choice for supernatural critters/monsters. As a fantasy nerd I couldn't help myself. However, in all honesty, swords would probably be a terrible weapon for the aforementioned. If your unfriendly neighborhood human crackfiend in a flannel and leather jacket would require 10 blows to bring down, I presume you wouldn't want to field your steel sword against a werewolf Yes, with a sword or Knife the "quickest" incapacitation is hitting/ cutting vitals in the neck, a kidney stab, or a thrust to "the 5th rib" to the heart if one is expert in that, and then hoping the attacker(s) do not have a firearm (!). None in theory would be quicker than a handgun with good placement. Once we get to Shotguns with buckshot in SD use, we up the chances to incapacitate quicker. A rifle or Carbine is good for range, and ability to carry more ammunition, but that is not generally a strict home defense issue, unless one lives in a rural area.
That being said, and a little off topic, it's quite common in wartime situations for soldiers to run out of ammunition, and a short sword could be very handy to acquire an enemy's kit if one can get close enough. If both sides run out of ammunition, it would be a great advantage to have a sword. If one can avoid the landmines, artillery, drones, etc., hand to hand combat is still a "thing", even in eastern Europe right now.
In fantasy or futuristic situations, I think it's proper to think of spears / swords and armor, in my body of knowledge that is where we are headed globally. The world is closer than ever to a World War where specialized EMP weapons, and other exchanges of fissile material will eventually set humanity back 1000 years at best. Assuming one survives the initial multiple attacks, the resulting meltdowns of Nuclear plants will poison the land in targeted places for eons. ( They need months of power to shut down and cool fuel rods, 3 weeks of fuel won't cut it). Survivors will have to migrate or die.
Incapacitation using a smaller sized knife can be (as you described) not so quick, but certain larger knives and swords can offer instant incapacitation. In a home defense situation you may strive for ambush, and heavy one hand swords and particularly two hand, can remove head from shoulders or split skull in two below collarbone. War hammers, axe, tomahawk, other heavy blunt force impact weapons also work, but not as versatile as the long blades.
|
|
|
Post by izzy on Jan 16, 2024 18:07:31 GMT
Yes, with a sword or Knife the "quickest" incapacitation is hitting/ cutting vitals in the neck, a kidney stab, or a thrust to "the 5th rib" to the heart if one is expert in that, and then hoping the attacker(s) do not have a firearm (!). None in theory would be quicker than a handgun with good placement. Once we get to Shotguns with buckshot in SD use, we up the chances to incapacitate quicker. A rifle or Carbine is good for range, and ability to carry more ammunition, but that is not generally a strict home defense issue, unless one lives in a rural area.
That being said, and a little off topic, it's quite common in wartime situations for soldiers to run out of ammunition, and a short sword could be very handy to acquire an enemy's kit if one can get close enough. If both sides run out of ammunition, it would be a great advantage to have a sword. If one can avoid the landmines, artillery, drones, etc., hand to hand combat is still a "thing", even in eastern Europe right now.
In fantasy or futuristic situations, I think it's proper to think of spears / swords and armor, in my body of knowledge that is where we are headed globally. The world is closer than ever to a World War where specialized EMP weapons, and other exchanges of fissile material will eventually set humanity back 1000 years at best. Assuming one survives the initial multiple attacks, the resulting meltdowns of Nuclear plants will poison the land in targeted places for eons. ( They need months of power to shut down and cool fuel rods, 3 weeks of fuel won't cut it). Survivors will have to migrate or die.
Incapacitation using a smaller sized knife can be (as you described) not so quick, but certain larger knives and swords can offer instant incapacitation. In a home defense situation you may strive for ambush, and heavy one hand swords and particularly two hand, can remove head from shoulders or split skull in two below collarbone. War hammers, axe, tomahawk, other heavy blunt force impact weapons also work, but not as versatile as the long blades. well if you lop the head off, or crush skulls with a large / heavy sword, yes that kind of strike would be quick. the question is would one have enough room in the living space for such beautiful cuts? That really depends on the abode. For me personally a large sword would only work in the living room/ dinning room, and even that is crammed with things that could get in the way...but it could be done.
I like the idea of hammers, most everyone has one, no need to buy, would make a good back up to a sword / knife...of course this is for places where legal firearms are hard/ impossible to obtain.
|
|
howler
Member
Posts: 5,254
Member is Online
|
Post by howler on Jan 16, 2024 18:41:15 GMT
well if you lop the head off, or crush skulls with a large / heavy sword, yes that kind of strike would be quick. the question is would one have enough room in the living space for such beautiful cuts? That really depends on the abode. For me personally a large sword would only work in the living room/ dinning room, and even that is crammed with things that could get in the way...but it could be done.
I like the idea of hammers, most everyone has one, no need to buy, would make a good back up to a sword / knife...of course this is for places where legal firearms are hard/ impossible to obtain.
The ability (as you noted) to swing indoors in certain environments is (can be) a major issue when choosing and then using a cutting/striking weapon for defense. I have (among other types) a Cheness SGC (specialized cutter) Ko Katana that features a regular two handed grip but a wide, heavy, short wakizashi length blade. Best you can do after selecting your blade is to practice swinging in certain areas while being mindful of walls, ceilings, furniture, whatnot. Sadly, in the real world you can still fall prey to fear, adrenaline dump, lack of practice, bad luck, etc...and lose to the bad guy after an over swing into the ceiling followed by him shooting you, but them is the breaks, and why I have guns, lots of guns.
|
|
|
Post by mrstabby on Jan 16, 2024 18:56:21 GMT
It very much depends on available space what you can use. And getting the drop on someone who is actively looking for trouble isn't that easy. Yes, you could remove someones head with one swing even of a short blade, but it takes good aim and power, which all will be reduced in such a high adrenaline situation. And what if he has buddies? you might sever one head from out of the shadows, but it's likely the others will now know you are there.
The WW1 soldiers preferred clubs over blades because you could instantly KO someone with a good hit on the head (even through the WW1 helmet, but they were not very sophisticated for the most part). A silent kill with a knife takes a lot more finesse. A blunt weapon might have more stopping power, but it's also a lot harder to use and control. I don't think a hammer would be much better than a blade in a home defense situation. The targets where a hammer is most effective are fewer in my opinion, the head and where the tissue over the bone is thin (like the shins), and it won't be of much use in very close contact, you need to have some space to swing it after all.
And if there are multiple intruders, I am not sure if there is much of a chance with any non-firearm against 3 or 4 guys with crowbars.
|
|
|
Post by Tiers1 on Jan 16, 2024 20:30:32 GMT
Please allow me to wax poetic for just a moment....
There is something both sad and fantastic about how many of us in this hobby (and probably contributing right now) started off collecting with our heads in the clouds of Lord of the Rings and Conan, imagining what it must be like to swing a mighty sword around, casually felling orcs and black dragons like ripe wheat. After decades of collecting, reading historical sources, and practicing HEMA, we have now separated reel from real...and real is much closer too 'with a large sword you could try for the head/neck, hope you have enough room to swing it, and have good edge alignment...otherwise it's going to be a taxing affair to drop an average, reasonably clothed, and determined dude using a sword as your weapon...especially if he's high'... as Matt Easton (who I do tend to think knows what he is talking about) has said many times...swords are good at several things at the same time, relative to other hand weapons, but they aren't great at anything (which of course includes having a propensity to be rapidly decisive)
Back to the topic at hand. I have actually had a few (four) of the repeating crossbows on the market. I agree with the sentiment above that if someone was trying to close the gap you could get on 1 or 2 shots max...cocking them takes, in relative terms, way more time then pulling the trigger. They can fail to fire or misfeed...and clearing that takes way too much time. If the bolt flew without nocking correctly the xbow might blow up when readying the next shot. Additionally, the broad heads that instigate the sort of damage necessary to truly meet the self-defense threshold do not fit in the magazines, which only accommodate narrow broad heads or the bodkin type tips. Better than nothing, but honestly you'd probably be better off with bear/pepper spray.
|
|
howler
Member
Posts: 5,254
Member is Online
|
Post by howler on Jan 16, 2024 21:38:19 GMT
It very much depends on available space what you can use. And getting the drop on someone who is actively looking for trouble isn't that easy. Yes, you could remove someones head with one swing even of a short blade, but it takes good aim and power, which all will be reduced in such a high adrenaline situation. And what if he has buddies? you might sever one head from out of the shadows, but it's likely the others will now know you are there. The WW1 soldiers preferred clubs over blades because you could instantly KO someone with a good hit on the head (even through the WW1 helmet, but they were not very sophisticated for the most part). A silent kill with a knife takes a lot more finesse. A blunt weapon might have more stopping power, but it's also a lot harder to use and control. I don't think a hammer would be much better than a blade in a home defense situation. The targets where a hammer is most effective are fewer in my opinion, the head and where the tissue over the bone is thin (like the shins), and it won't be of much use in very close contact, you need to have some space to swing it after all. And if there are multiple intruders, I am not sure if there is much of a chance with any non-firearm against 3 or 4 guys with crowbars. I'd certainly pick something like a kukri over a hammer, being it has slicing & chopping power, in addition to heavy weight for blunt force to the noggin. As a fighting blade, a kukri is not a lively as other choices, and stabbing ability is not so good, so I'd choose a heavy bowie instead.
|
|
|
Post by mrstabby on Jan 16, 2024 22:04:28 GMT
Tiers1 : I thought the repeaters could shoot broadheads. And I didn't even think reliability, but I remember some saying it can be quite bad, especially when you hurry. Never fell in love with the repeaters because of reliability, longevity and arrow selection. That was quite a while ago, so when I saw some advertising them for self defense I thought they'd have fixed these issued. howler A big bowie sounds like a good idea, I probably could get away with using the Windlass D-guard, but it's gonna be a close fit in the corridor connecting the rooms. I am still waiting for my CS 1917 to arrive, I hope it is as fearsome as it looks. That would probably the shortest blade I would want, 30cm/12". The Kukuri made me think about how robust a blade should be. It would be good if it would not bend or break when you hit the corner of a wall or a lamp or something. So something heftier might be advisable? I have tried out a hammer 400g/0,9lbs and a small axe 600g/1,4lbs against some water bottles a while ago, I really hated it. All power, no control. And recovering from a missed strike is really slow. It was awesome to see the bottles pop from the blunt impact. I think if you train with such weapons more, you could become very fearsome. But it's not for me.
|
|
howler
Member
Posts: 5,254
Member is Online
|
Post by howler on Jan 16, 2024 22:32:04 GMT
Tiers1 : I thought the repeaters could shoot broadheads. And I didn't even think reliability, but I remember some saying it can be quite bad, especially when you hurry. Never fell in love with the repeaters because of reliability, longevity and arrow selection. That was quite a while ago, so when I saw some advertising them for self defense I thought they'd have fixed these issued. howler A big bowie sounds like a good idea, I probably could get away with using the Windlass D-guard, but it's gonna be a close fit in the corridor connecting the rooms. I am still waiting for my CS 1917 to arrive, I hope it is as fearsome as it looks. That would probably the shortest blade I would want, 30cm/12". The Kukuri made me think about how robust a blade should be. It would be good if it would not bend or break when you hit the corner of a wall or a lamp or something. So something heftier might be advisable? I have tried out a hammer 400g/0,9lbs and a small axe 600g/1,4lbs against some water bottles a while ago, I really hated it. All power, no control. And recovering from a missed strike is really slow. It was awesome to see the bottles pop from the blunt impact. I think if you train with such weapons more, you could become very fearsome. But it's not for me. I have one and think you will like the CS 1917, and at 1 1/2lbs it has weight. Not the liveliest bowie, but tough & robust.
|
|
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Jan 17, 2024 0:06:50 GMT
Maybe there's a psychological effect of blades with a mean stabby tip, a gladius has much of it, Bowies too.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Newport on Jan 17, 2024 1:22:39 GMT
Maybe there's a psychological effect of blades with a mean stabby tip, a gladius has much of it, Bowies too. A gladius/spatha would be my choice too. if I had to, a waki but I'd prefer a double edged weapon for CQB. katana or Medieval sword would be as cumbersome as a rifle in the confines of a typical middle-class home.
|
|
|
Post by izzy on Jan 17, 2024 1:26:43 GMT
Please allow me to wax poetic for just a moment.... There is something both sad and fantastic about how many of us in this hobby (and probably contributing right now) started off collecting with our heads in the clouds of Lord of the Rings and Conan, imagining what it must be like to swing a mighty sword around, casually felling orcs and black dragons like ripe wheat. After decades of collecting, reading historical sources, and practicing HEMA, we have now separated reel from real...and real is much closer too 'with a large sword you could try for the head/neck, hope you have enough room to swing it, and have good edge alignment...otherwise it's going to be a taxing affair to drop an average, reasonably clothed, and determined dude using a sword as your weapon...especially if he's high'... as Matt Easton (who I do tend to think knows what he is talking about) has said many times...swords are good at several things at the same time, relative to other hand weapons, but they aren't great at anything (which of course includes having a propensity to be rapidly decisive) Back to the topic at hand. I have actually had a few (four) of the repeating crossbows on the market. I agree with the sentiment above that if someone was trying to close the gap you could get on 1 or 2 shots max...cocking them takes, in relative terms, way more time then pulling the trigger. They can fail to fire or misfeed...and clearing that takes way too much time. If the bolt flew without nocking correctly the xbow might blow up when readying the next shot. Additionally, the broad heads that instigate the sort of damage necessary to truly meet the self-defense threshold do not fit in the magazines, which only accommodate narrow broad heads or the bodkin type tips. Better than nothing, but honestly you'd probably be better off with bear/pepper spray. Always good to hear from people with experience with those kind of crossbows...the part about the bolt not nocking correctly really raises alarm bells...bolts are cylindrical and there is nothing that could keep them from shifting to the side....one wonders if they shot rectangular bolts w/o fletching if they could be made slightly more reliable (?).
On jams I have read that on Amazon reviews, not surprising, this is a gravity fed affair...
Edit: I don't trust Pepper spray, had on fizzle out on me when I wanted to use it ( propellant went bad), lucky I could get away...
BUT if used indoors one need the kind that shoots in stream, not a spray, if you use a spray indoors you are getting some as well.
Just my 2Cents on spray.
|
|