Questions about using a knife for self-defense seem to fall in the same camp as what gun/ammo should I carry concealed for self-defense, and what kind of gun should I carry in grizzly country. Interesting armchair discussions, but unlikely to really be of much use in day-to-day life for most people. Still, I did say it was interesting, so with that prologue, let me briefly state my current understanding of defense with an edged weapon, and the basis for my Subject question.
It seems that edged weapons can be used in 4 ways for self-defense:
Sword only group:
1. As a club. My brother who was in the navy told me in days of sailing ships, sailor's swords were not sharpened on the edge. A sharpened sword edge could stick in the enemy, and then you have lost further use of your weapon. So the sword was really used as a club.
If I recall correctly, in a previous post an ex-serviceman said that in combat he would grab his entrenchment tool before a knife for hand-to-hand combat. The entrenchment tool would also be used as a club.
2. For hacking. With sharp-edged swords, samarai and conquistadors could hack off enemy arms and heads. (Colonel Jeff Cooper mentions this is a recent interview in one of the gun magazines.)
Swords and knives:
3. For stabbing. Try for a killing stab to the heart, artery, etc. (In the Cooper interview, he seems to see this as the primary use of a knife for self-defense.)
4. For slashing. This is primarily for disabling the opponent. When he tries to strike you, you slash his arm and cut muscle and ligaments, thereby disabling further use of his arm. You are trying to cripple him to stop him. (Although I suppose a slash across the throat is a killing blow equivalent to a stab to the heart. Maybe even more immediately effective. )Somewhere recently I read an article where the author said that stabbing was not the best use of a knife in self-defense situations. First, since it is likely to kill the attacker, the defender will face potentially more serious legal problems. (This is a side issue that could be argued all day, and I don't want to distract from actual fighting practices .) Second, a killing stab may not be immediately effective, and the person receiving the stab wound may be able to still cause much harm before expiring. So disabling the attacker by slashing was a safer defense strategy.
I suspect one would need to be a better trained fighter to effectively slash to disable an opponent then to stab to kill him. Most people seem to be concerned more about a fighting knifes stabbibg ability than its slashing ability.
So if one is to carry an edged weapon for self-defense, and swords are not practable because of thier size, if one can still carry a fixed blade and is not worried about hiding the knife so need not rely on a folder, why not carry a sharpened bayonet ? Bayonets are cheap. They may not penetrate as easily as a thinner bladed knife, but one needen't worry much about it breaking either. They were made for stabbing. (Al-be-it two-handed stabbing at the end of a rifle.) Although not a sword, they are heavy enough to have some clubbing potential. The M-16 baynets of the Viet Nam era are fairly compact, available and cheap. So why are they not more popular ?
By the way, I asked a SOG soldier with Viet Nam service about carrying a fighting knife. He said he had carried a Buck 110 folder, that he had attached a thumb stud, when he was in the field. But he had no intention of using it for fighting. He said when in the field, he had an M-16, a Browning Highpower pistol, and Claymore mines. If his guns failed, he figured he would be in the middle of a battle and would pick up another rifle off the ground. He used his knife as a utility tool. I suspect these days he would carry a multi-tool rather than the Buck folder.
I do not carry a knife for self-defense, or a bayonet either for that matter. But after reading the Cooper interview, and previous posts on this site, it has caused me to form the initial impressions detailed above. Any insights would be appreciated.
It seems that edged weapons can be used in 4 ways for self-defense:
Sword only group:
1. As a club. My brother who was in the navy told me in days of sailing ships, sailor's swords were not sharpened on the edge. A sharpened sword edge could stick in the enemy, and then you have lost further use of your weapon. So the sword was really used as a club.
If I recall correctly, in a previous post an ex-serviceman said that in combat he would grab his entrenchment tool before a knife for hand-to-hand combat. The entrenchment tool would also be used as a club.
2. For hacking. With sharp-edged swords, samarai and conquistadors could hack off enemy arms and heads. (Colonel Jeff Cooper mentions this is a recent interview in one of the gun magazines.)
Swords and knives:
3. For stabbing. Try for a killing stab to the heart, artery, etc. (In the Cooper interview, he seems to see this as the primary use of a knife for self-defense.)
4. For slashing. This is primarily for disabling the opponent. When he tries to strike you, you slash his arm and cut muscle and ligaments, thereby disabling further use of his arm. You are trying to cripple him to stop him. (Although I suppose a slash across the throat is a killing blow equivalent to a stab to the heart. Maybe even more immediately effective. )Somewhere recently I read an article where the author said that stabbing was not the best use of a knife in self-defense situations. First, since it is likely to kill the attacker, the defender will face potentially more serious legal problems. (This is a side issue that could be argued all day, and I don't want to distract from actual fighting practices .) Second, a killing stab may not be immediately effective, and the person receiving the stab wound may be able to still cause much harm before expiring. So disabling the attacker by slashing was a safer defense strategy.
I suspect one would need to be a better trained fighter to effectively slash to disable an opponent then to stab to kill him. Most people seem to be concerned more about a fighting knifes stabbibg ability than its slashing ability.
So if one is to carry an edged weapon for self-defense, and swords are not practable because of thier size, if one can still carry a fixed blade and is not worried about hiding the knife so need not rely on a folder, why not carry a sharpened bayonet ? Bayonets are cheap. They may not penetrate as easily as a thinner bladed knife, but one needen't worry much about it breaking either. They were made for stabbing. (Al-be-it two-handed stabbing at the end of a rifle.) Although not a sword, they are heavy enough to have some clubbing potential. The M-16 baynets of the Viet Nam era are fairly compact, available and cheap. So why are they not more popular ?
By the way, I asked a SOG soldier with Viet Nam service about carrying a fighting knife. He said he had carried a Buck 110 folder, that he had attached a thumb stud, when he was in the field. But he had no intention of using it for fighting. He said when in the field, he had an M-16, a Browning Highpower pistol, and Claymore mines. If his guns failed, he figured he would be in the middle of a battle and would pick up another rifle off the ground. He used his knife as a utility tool. I suspect these days he would carry a multi-tool rather than the Buck folder.
I do not carry a knife for self-defense, or a bayonet either for that matter. But after reading the Cooper interview, and previous posts on this site, it has caused me to form the initial impressions detailed above. Any insights would be appreciated.
