October 13, 2014, 08:46 PM | #26 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 2,199
|
Let's also remember that the Tueller drill is based on non-movement and a duty rig, not concealment, that that the 21ft was the "break even" mark.
Anyone inside that bubble can land a contact wound more than 50% of the time, before the defender can draw and fire. Therefore, frustrating that first attempt is critically important to being able to draw and fire without being wounded/killed. Going to ground may be an option for avoiding that first strike, but it seriously limits your future mobility options. Moving directly away from the attacker buys you a little time, but does not change the geometry. Lateral movement may buy you time, and does change the geometry. As we saw, the combat roll to the side bought the defender more time than simply falling backwards, although it added complexity for the defender as well as the attacker (as he now had to turn almost 180 to aim). Every scenario is going to vary in the details, so it is important to take some "big picture" lessons. 1. The roughly 21ft bubble is where contact weapons become a better than 50/50 proposition for landing the first hit against a defender with a holstered firearm. (Any smart attacker with an edged weapon will attempt to close the distance before making their intent known!) 2. The defender can and SHOULD present a moving target, in order to evade the first blow and retaliate or escape. 3. Going to ground MAY present a viable option to change the attacker's geometry and provide a slightly longer time to respond, but it has drawbacks for the defender, as well. |
October 13, 2014, 08:59 PM | #27 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: May 1, 2001
Posts: 10,223
|
Quote:
"Contemporary Knife Targeting", by Grosz and Janich is a good read. Mike Janich has some interesting videos on youtube as well. Knives have been a very effective weapon since before man knew how to use metal. They have not lost their effectiveness, and even today, will do things that bullets cant, like defeat a vest. Dont assume that because its "only a knife" and you have a gun, that you will prevail. Arrogance like that, can easily get you killed. Quote:
Bullets are basically just knives without grips, with either, you need to hit vital organs and vessels, and keep doing so, until the target is down. Quote:
|
|||
October 13, 2014, 09:14 PM | #28 | ||
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
October 14, 2014, 12:40 AM | #29 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 16, 2013
Location: Eastern NC
Posts: 3,047
|
Quote:
It's not new material Quote:
Quote:
Isn't that really the same? Quote:
I think that attitude would get me killed faster than thinking I have a fighting chance myself. Again, it's all just a rehash of a 30 year old discussion, where the only way the knife truly WINS is to keep the parameters unrealistically narrow, and pretend the one with the gun will wait for the attack without reacting at all, and will fall over at the slightest nick. It has very little practical value in the real world, aside from being something to simply be aware of
__________________
One shot, one kill |
||||
October 14, 2014, 05:02 AM | #30 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: May 1, 2001
Posts: 10,223
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The only "unrealistic parameter" in the Tueller drill is, both parties are aware the drill is about to occur, and are prepped for it (very much like the old "slap your ear" drill in your martial arts class, to help you understand reaction times). Real world, thats not usually the case for the person being attacked. The drill is not the end all of any discussion, and as others have said, there are endless possibilities and variations for anything. It simply shows that the knife can in fact be a threat at a distance, and "if" you know the assault is coming, you are within your rights to deal with it using deadly force. All along, you have stated that the knife is not a viable weapon (and more or less in any capacity), unless its at contact distance, which is true. The point you seem to not want to admit to, is that a person armed with a knife, can be in that position, very quickly, and in many cases, before you can act, especially if youre not 100% aware, 100% of the time, which we all know is an impossibility. |
||||
October 14, 2014, 08:41 AM | #31 | |||||
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
It's not "over", an extremely serious situation. And when it becomes the case that the defender "was [only] able to shoot the charging knife attacker just as he reached the shooter", it is much, much more serious. The objective of the defender is to stop the attacker timely, and/or to avoid being seriously injured. If he shoots at contact distance, he will most likely fail; you just cannot reasonably expect the shots to stop the attacker quickly enough. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
And "not reacting at all" is but one way to ensure that loss. The defender must react very fast and very effectively. |
|||||
October 14, 2014, 09:40 AM | #32 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 10, 2014
Posts: 206
|
Quote:
|
|
October 14, 2014, 09:56 AM | #33 | |||||
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
It is also a risk that can be mitigated, and that is what all of this is about. Quote:
Last edited by OldMarksman; October 14, 2014 at 10:01 AM. Reason: Typo |
|||||
October 14, 2014, 10:25 AM | #34 | |||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Dennis Tueller (a Salt Lake City police officer) developed the exercise to test at what distances an assailant with a contact weapon could be a credible threat. But folks seem to perversely want not to understand the real meaning of the Tueller data. The point Tueller was trying to make with his exercises is that an assailant 21(+/-) feet away with a contact weapon needs to be taken seriously as a threat. You need to take him seriously as a threat because (1) he can cover the distance between you and him in a short time; and (2) it will take you a roughly comparable amount of time to draw and fire your gun. Tueller's original article may be read here. Notice that Tueller talks about how being able to recognize what your danger zone is and that someone in it is a credible threat allows one to take early, appropriate defensive, risk mitigating actions. Quote:
In training many drills are not about a particular situation. Many drills we do are about basic skills and knowledge adaptable to many situations.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|||
October 14, 2014, 10:36 AM | #35 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 10, 2014
Posts: 206
|
Quote:
|
|
October 14, 2014, 10:46 AM | #36 | |
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
I will react if and when I have a basis for a reasonable belief that I am faced with an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm. My first reaction will be to try to evade and/or avoid. But after that.... And yes, one of the potential threats may involve an attack by someone with a contact weapon. For what do you prepare, and how? |
|
October 14, 2014, 10:47 AM | #37 | ||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
In any case, your statement reflects a poor understanding of how people learn physical skills. For one thing, muscles don't have memory. Memory is in your brain. Furthermore, who is drilling anyone to turn and immediately fire at the sound of foot steps? When doing turning drills, one drills turning and assessing before drawing and firing.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper Last edited by Frank Ettin; October 14, 2014 at 11:02 AM. Reason: correct typo |
||
October 14, 2014, 12:35 PM | #38 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 12, 2009
Location: Athens, Georgia
Posts: 2,526
|
Here is an interesting example of knife vs gun. The homeowner was able to maintain distance but the knife wielder threw his knife.
|
October 14, 2014, 12:57 PM | #39 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 7, 2014
Location: Middle TN
Posts: 543
|
At work I have to deal with all kinds of folks Im good at making them stay atleast arms length away and other than the CRKT in my pocket I'm unarmed . Away from work at arms length Im sure if someone pulls a knife on me they are getting a magazine of hollow points somewhere in there center mass . At 20' they are getting 2 in the chest and 1 in the head . Train like you fight fight like you train .
|
October 14, 2014, 01:19 PM | #40 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 10, 2014
Posts: 206
|
Quote:
|
|
October 14, 2014, 01:35 PM | #41 | ||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
||
October 14, 2014, 02:52 PM | #42 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 16, 2013
Location: Eastern NC
Posts: 3,047
|
Quote:
__________________
One shot, one kill |
|
October 14, 2014, 03:00 PM | #43 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|
October 14, 2014, 04:12 PM | #44 | |||
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
You have said, without any substantiation, that a surpise attack by an assailant with a knife is something that is not going to happen. You have asked rhetorically whether one would draw, and perhaps fire, if someone "dares to make footstep sounds behind you", which of course is not what anyone should properly do. You also went on to suggest that anyone who did so react should not carry. Alrighty then. You have also said "if an assassin wants to knife you out of nowhere without warning, well, you're going to get knifed". Quote:
Let me ask you this: if that statement were true, why do trainers put so much stock in Tueller's findings, why do expert witnesses bring them up so often with important effect, and why do law enforcement cadets have the findings drilled into their minds so much? Now, regarding training per se, the "Tueller drill" is not really commonly employed. That was not and is not the primary purpose. As Frank said, "...Tueller developed the exercise to test at what distances an assailant with a contact weapon could be a credible threat", and I implied the same thing. Students train to effect a rapid draw while moving and to fire multiple shots with combat accuracy very quickly, at various ranges. They are also made to understand how quickly a fit assailant can cover 21 feet. The latter is the only real application of any part of the Tueller drill in most training If they can draw fast, move, and shoot effectively with the proper balance of speed and precision, consistently under pressure, and if they have been able to recognize and react to danger signals timely, they have a chance. Quote:
|
|||
October 14, 2014, 05:16 PM | #45 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 16, 2013
Location: Eastern NC
Posts: 3,047
|
Quote:
Exactly the answer I expected. The Tueller "drill" isn't really a drill at all. It's a demonstration, only done to prove a simple point, and there is no need for anyone to "train" by using the "drill", since it teaches you nothing new
__________________
One shot, one kill |
|
October 14, 2014, 05:21 PM | #46 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 1, 2001
Posts: 10,223
|
Quote:
|
|
October 14, 2014, 05:24 PM | #47 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 16, 2013
Location: Eastern NC
Posts: 3,047
|
Quote:
Go back to Post #15 You're attempting to reword it to fit your agenda Quote:
__________________
One shot, one kill |
||
October 14, 2014, 05:38 PM | #48 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 1, 2001
Posts: 10,223
|
OK, Ill humor you. Its a threat (when isnt it?), until its upon you, which is what this is all about, how quickly that will occur, and it is then very much, a viable deadly weapon.
I still strongly suggest you get yourself an airsoft gun that fits your holster, and a wooden "boken" martial arts training knife and give it a whirl a dozen or so times, with someone else, and prove your theory, or dont. The reason Im suggesting the boken is, its wood, and it "hurts" when you get struck with it. Bruises cant be denied, and you still get to live. You may even learn something from an antiquated piece of information. |
October 14, 2014, 05:54 PM | #49 | |
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
However, while I have received training, I have never been an instructor, nor have I ever designed training curricula for defensive shooting. One important method of training is simulation. Simulation is used in defensive training, engagement level air combat training, and all kinds of other combat training involving advanced weapon systems, unit level tactical training, and from there up--the sky is the limit. Don't forget firefighting, hazmat, CBN training, emergency rescue.... Simulation can be very valuable training tool, among other things. Those who can do it, and who place enough priority on training, may avail themselves of that kind of training. They may get involved on FoF exercises. Whether they use simunitions or AirSoft does not matter that much. In the course of all of that , they may include scenarios that involve a rushing attack with a contact weapon. That would be more realistic, I think, than simply striving for a 1.5 second draw in the abstract, and having seen how fast someone can close from seven yards. When you have faced a charging attacker, you will have become a believer. That does not mean that I disagree with your point. Last edited by OldMarksman; October 14, 2014 at 06:10 PM. Reason: Typo |
|
October 14, 2014, 06:36 PM | #50 | ||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Quote:
We also train for speed and accuracy -- being able to present one's gun and fire accurate shots quickly. Often instructors will work against a 1.5 second at seven yards standard. Often movement is incorporated into the exercise. At Gunsite, in Intermediate Handgun, at seven yards we were expected to fire two accurate shots, presenting from the holster and moving to the side at the same time, in 1.5 seconds. And OldMarksman has mentioned the importance of simulations in training. So while we might not train by actually performing a Tueller demonstration, Tueller's work helps form the bases of some of the training exercises we do use.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
||
|
|