Truth behind "never bring a gun to a knife fight"

L

lowlife

Joined
Aug 20, 2001
Messages
53
I was wondering what was the deal behind a gun vs. a knife in a fight? I talked to a couple of veitnam era Green Beret. they say "a man with knife is more dangerous than a man with a gun" he also mention that the reason is that with knife your so close you can tell what he ate sometime ago. and that it more harder to take a man's life while looking him in the eyes.

As in book it mention that Miyamoto Musashi says "at a distance, firearms have have no equal,but when swords are crossed, firearms are unless." can this be use in today world.

point of interest: i also talked to cops. let's say they're so full of themselves, i doubt they want to tango with Miyamoto Musashi of today.

Mr. Caracci i would you view from you police and combat experience.
 
imho it would depend on the distance involved if ya was real close the knife has the edge if the user knows WTF but if the distance is far (ie over 20 feet) ya are sunk if ya got a knife and they have a 12 gauge........


sifu
 
It always comes down to the situation. Musashi lived in the 1600's, when people met face to face to duel and when firearms had to be reloaded every shot. If a guy with a knife stuck the guy with a gun in a crowded subway cab then yeah the knife guy beats the gun guy. But if a sniper spotted some Rambo wannabe equippe only with a knife then the sniper wins, no contest. The situation changes everything. Both these weapons can kill. But in todays world, what are the chances of dueling with someone legally or being held up by a single shot pistol. Reality shows that if a guy wanted something from you or wanted to kill you he wouldn't let you know and would probably shoot you or stab you from behind, take your $hit,leave you bleeding on the floor, and leave ASAP before the LEO's get there.
 
An example of the knife being more dangerous than the gun (assuming you do not have your gun drawn) is illustrated by the Tueller drill. There are quite a few mentions of it in these forums.

The gist of it is that the average person can close a distance of 21 feet and deliver at least one attack with a knife in 1.5 seconds. It takes longer to draw a firearm and deliver an accurate shot. (I should also point out, before someone else does, that some consider the Tueller drill to be obsolete.)


Also consider that a knife can have more of a psychological effect than a gun. A gun is a marvel of human ingeniuty and desire to harm, but is also a simple machine. A knife, on the other hand, is one of the oldest and must brutal weapons known to man. It is very easy to miss with a gun, but the knife does not miss as easily. The gun can only injure what its barrel is directly pointed at.

Also, surprisingly few people have the nerve to use a knife on a fellow human being. No weapon more than the knife reminds the attacker of his own fragility and weakness, as he feels the blade slide into his opponent. He feels the heat and blood pouring from the wound. So few weapons require one to be as close to one's opponent, where one can literally experience their opponent struggle for his life.

Most people do not understand the effects of a bullet, because they've been raised on Hollywood portrayals of the good guy being shot in the shoulder and barely having it impede his ability to fire his own weapon. The gun is then, perhaps unconsciously, seen as a relatively less deadly weapon than the blade. Everyone's been cut at sometime in their lives, many seriously so, and can relate to a *minor* knife wound. On the other hand, a bullet is seen as a stunning wound, like being punched really hard in the shoulder, for those who have no reality with which to compare it.

Both the knife and the gun are deadly, but the psychological advantage could prove decisive.

Also, re-reading the 3rd and 4th paragraphs, they make me sound a tad psychotic...you should probably ignore that.
 
Like I said, situation counts. A maniac holdng a homemade shank at 20 feet is less dangerous than a man holding a handgun or at least a bowie from the same distance, although both are VERY dangerous. For example the maniac is probably on drugs and could care less about his well being, while the handgun/bowie guy might actually be really good at using his weapons.
 
Lowlife,
Be it far from me to tell you what Musashi or the author of his book meant. Also it would be important for the others to note that the book in question is the "Book of Five Rings". I have this book translated by two different people and by far I prefer Mr. Victor Harris's choice of English words that describe the authors (Musashi) meanings.
This is a publication that is very dear to me, the whole story of why is not important. This book speaks not of specifics, which most people zero in on but of concepts, fundamentals, and ways of life. These are not things one can read and immediately emulate. It's more a case of, you either are or you aren’t, or you either understand or you don't. The words can mean totally different things to different people.
As far as the concept you are referring I feel it is better to understand the big picture beyond the obvious. Firearms are very directional; a blade in a skilled hand can cut at any direction, rather non-directional. At distance one cannot affect the direction of the gun but up close, this becomes a different matter.
When dealing with a knife I have already stated that distance and timing are everything. It generally takes more skill to be effective with a knife especially against a skilled combatant. Generally however it does not require the same skill to pull a trigger.
Thus if you are following me, more than the obvious I take from this that when a struggle is within arms length skill and will are truly what is important. The weapon is an extension of the fighter but in the end the warrior gives the weapon it's potential. Therefore it really isn't about the obvious limitations of the weapons but rather the intellects that wield them!
In the end it is important to understand that time will change and technology will change, and the only thing that remains the same is the fighting fundamentals and the warriors mindset with or without the weapons.
Good question thanks for the opportunity.
 
It means know what the circumstances of the battle are, and come prepared to fight it with the proper intelligence, skills, weapons, and Spirit.

If you do, you will win. If you don't you will certainly lose.

If asked to play chess with a friend, you are foolish to arrive with a pocket full of checkers or marbles:)

Musashi and Sun Tzu and other sages of their time wrote carefully and require only careful reading and clear thought / study to understand what they have to share with us.

The answers to the questions are not hidden. They are out in the open. The only mystery is why we make it so hard on ourselves to learn what is openly shared, or complicate the simple / direct.

Life and learning is meant to be enjoyed. They are not sentences to be served:D
 
Actually, if you are interested in how a knife fares against a gun, or vice-versa, the is a very informative video called, "Surviving Edged Weapons" out there. I just found it available here- http://www.securitybookshop.com/videos.htm It is definitely worth getting. It will certainly change your view on self-defense.
FM.
 
Originally posted by Bodyhammer
An example of the knife being more dangerous than the gun (assuming you do not have your gun drawn) is illustrated by the Tueller drill. There are quite a few mentions of it in these forums.

The gist of it is that the average person can close a distance of 21 feet and deliver at least one attack with a knife in 1.5 seconds. It takes longer to draw a firearm and deliver an accurate shot. (I should also point out, before someone else does, that some consider the Tueller drill to be obsolete.)
Click to expand...

Dennis Tueller's original point, as I understand it, was to demonstrate that a man with a knife is a legitimate threat at far greater distances than most people (especially juries) believe. The 21' distance is pretty arbitrary, but it does represent the distance a knife-wielding attacker can cover before even a pretty skilled shooter can draw and fire.

This demo, however, has two logical flaws (which Tueller understood):

A) We're assuming the defender sees the attacker coming. A guy with a knife isn't generally going to announce himself from 7 yards. He'll try to get much closer before revealing his knife or his intentions. That makes the knife attack all the more deadly because the defender (with the pistol) has even less time to react. Tueller knew this, but wanted to make the point that knives are deadly threats at much more than contact distance.

B) We're also assuming that the defender stands still. Having practiced this with a couple of instructors, I can tell you that if the defender moves off the line of force (I prefer a j-hook pattern to the diagonal) he will have time to draw and fire repeatedly, especially if he keeps moving. That doesn't change the fact that the knife is still a deadly threat, but it does even the odds somewhat.

So I don't believe the knife is more dangerous than the gun. It is, however, just as deadly within its window on the distance/time continuum.

But given the much larger window of effectiveness of the pistol, I'll take it every time. You're going to have to be pretty good to chase me down and cut me with a knife if I see it coming. I don't have to be that good to put many holes in you while you try it.

Food for thought,
Chad
 
Interesting points.

I'd offer the following for consideration:

1. The WORST guy or GAL with a knife and the intent to gut you is the one who attacks within an arm's length by surprise.

2. There are those who will come at you from greater distance. They do so for a variety of reasons to include extreme hatred or anger, drug or alchohol impairment, or just plain craziness.

3. They are moving. You best start and stay moving, too. If you simply move off line and stand there getting that nice clean sight picture for just the first round...you're gonna get nailed.

4. The distance has been bumped up to 25+ feet for a legal shoot.

5. Next time you train this I'd suggest the following:

Get a simple paintball gun. Wear appropriate safety clothing and eye protection.

Holster up and have your training partner, armed with a magic marker, start out from 25 feet away at a dead run. Place some obstacles between he/she and where you are standing. Put them off to the side, down the center, right up to where your start point is.

Your training partner is to use these along the way as he/she feels is most opportune to their attack. These obstacles represent the real world. Chairs, tables, other people in the crowd or way, and so on.

Now, simply step off line, unholster, and try to hit your advancing maniac target.

Hmmmm...now that probably really sucked.

Do it again. This time step off line or begin moving rapidly rearward while drawing and attempting to gain a clear sight picture and to fire accurately on the advancing maniac. Remember you are legally responsible for where every round you fire goes downrange...to include hitting and killing innocent bystanders.

Hmmmm....now that probably sucked too.

Do it again. This time step off line and if you have an avenue of escape available, use it. Run hard and fast to the first bit of cover you can find (or concealment). Is the maniac still chasing you? Is there no escape? Use what you can to fire from whatever shooting position you have time to achieve and hit accurately.

Hmmmm, how did that turn out?

Now that you've seen and experienced how much more you need to think about, consider, and how much BETTER you have to be with your handgun to accurately hit the maniac as he's weaving, bobbing, dancing, and swinging his knife at you while doing so, you'll have the opportunity to train harder, more often, and more realistically so you can do what you need to when called upon.

And bear in mind folks soak up bullets pretty well and still keep coming, especially when alchohol or drug impaired, crazed, or wearing body armor (which is so easily available any more - or made at home - that it simply must be trained to engage successfully).

I needed to do all the above during a local course development on this subject. Wow! What lessons one learns! Fortunately it's kinda fun and it doesn't hurt...too much :)

Looking forward to your comments if you give the above a try. I think it'll truly benefit you and anyone else so inclined.:D

Oh, the maniac with the BIG RED MARKER gets to "cut" you any way they can once they get to you. Check and see where you may have hit them with the paint or Simunitions ammo, then see where they hit you with the marker.

It is a very eye opening experience:barf:
 
Originally posted by Sierra912
Interesting points.

I'd offer the following for consideration:

3. They are moving. You best start and stay moving, too. If you simply move off line and stand there getting that nice clean sight picture for just the first round...you're gonna get nailed.
Click to expand...

Yup, that's why I prefer a kind of j-hook movement to a simple diagonal off the line. The circular pattern tends to keep you moving more than the diagonal. Don't know why, it just seems to work that way.


4. The distance has been bumped up to 25+ feet for a legal shoot.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I didn't know that. I'm not surprised, though. Things happen a lot faster than you thought they would. I'm happy that I've never had to deal with this in real life.


5. Next time you train this I'd suggest the following:
Click to expand...

[snipped some truly excellent training advice for space reasons]

I needed to do all the above during a local course development on this subject. Wow! What lessons one learns! Fortunately it's kinda fun and it doesn't hurt...too much :)

Looking forward to your comments if you give the above a try. I think it'll truly benefit you and anyone else so inclined.:D

Oh, the maniac with the BIG RED MARKER gets to "cut" you any way they can once they get to you. Check and see where you may have hit them with the paint or Simunitions ammo, then see where they hit you with the marker.

It is a very eye opening experience:barf:
Click to expand...

Yup, I've done it with Simunitions (actually Code Eagle) and a chalked rubber knife. Hadn't tried it with non-threats interspersed, though. I'm sure that would indeed be eye-opening (and a lot trickier). It is a blast, though! Except, of course, the couple of times my 270lb training partner fell on me :barf:.

My partner during this class was, as I just said, a big ol' boy. He also is SWAT trained and the leader of the SRT for a large prison. The chance of a knife attack is a lot more real for him than it is for most of us, so he was taking this training very seriously.

The assumption is, of course, that you can't just run away in this scenario and that shooting is your only option. Otherwise, I'll take the Nike defense every time :D.

We found out that moving off the line is critical, but even more critical is the need to keep moving, hence my preference for a more circular movement, if possible. Movement to his off-hand side (my right, his left) seemed to work better as it forced the attacker to lunge across his body, reducing his reach and power.

We also discovered that our shooting went to sh*t, but we could still hit with some regularity if we kept the shooting platform stable. You can't do it at a dead run (which is probably what I'd be doing if it were for real).

I generally got cut on my left bicep/forearm, sometimes stabbed in the upper left chest. He generally took three or four rounds from the J-frame. The hits were scattered, if I remember right, from the right thigh to the lower abdomen, upper left chest and left ear (I counted it as a hit;)). There were more misses than I was comfortable with, which is why I'd really like to try it again with non-threats around.

When we switched places, he was able to hit me pretty solidly, but he's also a hell of a shooter. I was able to cut him, though.

The real lesson is that I never, ever want to be in a situation like that. Color codes and situational awareness took on a whole new meaning after that class. The other real lesson is that he's gonna have to chase me a loooong way, probably through large amounts of my poop :D, to catch me. Yep, bowel-loosening as a defensive tactic. Let's see one of the gunrags write that up!

This is really turning into a great discussion. Thanks for your insights and excellent points. I'm going to have to try some of these suggestions next time I get the chance.

Chad
 
Wow! Great comments and experiences!

Thanks for sharing. Every bit of proven or disproven information benefits all.

I, too, favor the NIKE defense whenever possible. Most animals do. It's the ones who when cornered then to fight that are often the most lethal.

Or the ones who pull / suck you into where they WANT TO FIGHT by appearing to be retreating / surrendering.

The Art of Deception is one subject many don't consider or train.
 
Greg, I think our experiences complement each other. We didn't have cover available during that exercise, otherwise I would have used it. The point of the demonstration was to get the students moving and keep them moving. Being whacked or stabbed -- or fallen on :rolleyes: -- was to graphically reinforce the point that if you're not moving, you're dead. If you move well enough, you can avoid the brunt of the attack and even fight back effectively. The Sim guns added an extra touch of realism.

The other aspect to consider is that this was an advanced class. We were all pretty good shooters used to shooting on the move. I'm an IDPA expert and IPSC A class shooter, and I think I was on the low end of the skill spectrum that weekend. Sure felt like it.
I also think that the fact that none of us was a skilled knife fighter had something to do with the results. I don't know how we would have faired against someone schooled in knife fighting.


Interesting side note(might have been this class, might have been another with the same trainer):
We were testing whether it was better to slow down a little and shoot on the move or run like hell for cover and shoot from there in a gun vs. gun scenario. Attacker was 7-10 yards away when he pulled his gun and threatened the defender. The Attacker remained stationary. The defender had a wall about 15-20 feet to his right.

My contention was that the defender should sprint for the wall and fight from there, if necessary. The trainer taught that you should draw and shoot on the move. But (and this is part of the reason I like him so much) he was willing to test it out with Sim guns to see which approach worked better.

Turns out he was right. We tried it with a couple of different attackers and defenders. When the defender sprinted for the wall he was hit pretty regularly. None were too bad, mostly upper arm, shoulder & buttocks, with a couple of solid hits that I suspect were mainly luck :). I made one fantastic head shot that no-one would believe was intentional -- cynical bastards.

When the defender shot back while moving he still got hit, but a lot less. And he was able to hit his attacker solidly -- solidly enough that if the rounds were real, I suspect the attacker would have withdrawn. Again there were no non-threats in the way, and there were more misses than I'm comfortable with (suppressive fire is not a viable option in civilian self-defense :eek: ), but it was an eye-opener for me.

Of course, we had just spent the weekend drawing and shooting while moving off the line, so we were all "warmed up." Dunno how it would work out cold. But I thought it was worth passing along.

Chad
 
Good experimentation.

Always nice to work with an instructor who says, "Hey, let's try that out and see!"

My sense it that one has to make a split second decision as to whether or not to dash for cover or escape / evade or hold ground and fight or take it to the other guy:D

Key seems to center on what you KNOW you can do in any of those cases (or know you CAN'T do) based upon what you've trained (or not trained) and how realistic your experimentation was to see what works and doesn't work for you.
 
i'm surprised about replys. all good way of think and training. i thank you for that. but.........

let's up the ante.

let's just say i happen to have a small sword (wakashi) on my back. Question who the situation be the same?

lowlife
 
Let's just say I have a nuclear weapon in my pocket...:)

You'll fight as you train.

To fight succesfully you must know not only your own strengths and weaknesses (always seeking to repair your weaknesses) but those of the weapons, strategies, and tactics/techniques you are employing and facing.

Don't focus on the weapons. These are just tools. Focus on head knowledge and skills, the tools then perform what they are designed to do.

:cool:
 
Great comments!
Greg, I agree with you 100%. As you know, this is a subject that I've tried to get across to many LEO's, (as I'm sure many others have as well).
The bottom line is to truly understand the mindset needed to survive (i.e.: Charge with the knife at all costs, if that's all you've got, or being willing and able to pump some lead into the opponent, and HOW to pull this off). As well as having a complete understanding and deep respect for both of these lethal weapons. They both have certain strengths and drawbacks. The hand gun should overcome the knife wielding opponent as long as distance is present and movement (and possible hand 2 hand skills to augment), but if he can reach you, ......and he's obviously determined (God forbid he has skill).....Well, you are in trouble and have better done some homework in advance. This is not the time to realize that you should have done more than just perfect your scores on the range or on an IPSC/IDPA course (where you are not being shot back at or charged with deadly weapon). Don't get me wrong this IS great training, but this is only part of a more comprehensive, combat application that I'm trying to describe.
Serious training is what we are talking about. Let the creative juices flow! I personally have taken part in several drills similar as those described here, and let me tell you, IT'S EYE OPENING!
Not to mention how many cops I've "mortally wounded" (at my Knife seminars) doing drills such as Mr. Tueller's or as seen in the "Surviving Edged Weapons" video.
But more importantly, the lesson that is brought up is the main thing and repeats itself over and over again. If we don't learn it, we will be doomed to suffer from it. That is:
Never underestimate the opponent.
I have a saying that I try to live by, and that is:
Luck should not be left to chance. "Luck" should be when preparation meets with opportunity.
Ok, this is my first 2 cents on this subject. I'll write more soon.

KSN
 
Concerning Tuller's "how close is to close", you need to look at 21' as a start. Think of it as "reactionary gap". The distance between yourself and the perp needed to control the situation. As several people already mentioned, you need to move away from the danager anyway you can. By all means use available cover.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top