Who said?


PDA






Gary O
April 26, 2012, 09:47 PM
"the best use for a handgun is to fight your way to a rifle" ? Thanks...

If you enjoyed reading about "Who said?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
GCBurner
April 26, 2012, 10:21 PM
I remember reading that in "Boston's Gun Bible", by Boston T. Party, but I don't know if he was quoting it, or origninated it. It actually sounds like something Jeff Cooper would have said.

David E
April 26, 2012, 11:07 PM
I don't know who said it originally, but it's oft quoted by so-called tactical gurus that don't live in the normal world to show how über-tactical they are....:rolleyes:

ApacheCoTodd
April 27, 2012, 12:46 AM
Well, it wouldn't have been a gunman so... maybe... Or Sgt York.

Brian Williams
April 27, 2012, 01:12 AM
old discussion here on TFL (http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3723) where they attribute it to Clint Smith of Thunder Ranch but it might be an old military saying

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3723

9mmepiphany
April 27, 2012, 02:45 AM
I thought it came out of the NTI conference...I thought I first read it in from a Ayoob article

chieftain
April 27, 2012, 04:13 AM
I first heard it in the Corps in the mid sixties. IIRC it was the Company Gunny of the first infantry company I was attached to.

The TACP (Tactical Air Control Party) carried a very heavy PRC-41 UHF radio which weighted 42 lbs. In those days as a young PFC I always got the radio (before I went to Vietnam), and only carried a pistol. That's when the gunny was telling me to get a rifle. This was the pre-M16 days, so it was a M14.

As I found out later in Vietnam, the Gunny was right. Whether I carried the radio or not carry a rifle. Being cool was not as high on the to do list as staying alive.

Two things I did learn. Handguns are clearly not as effective to use or on target, it always appeared as an order of magnitude difference. Second, Those new radio's I see our boys using are sooooo much better than the heavy crap we had.

Good luck.

Fred

bikerdoc
April 27, 2012, 05:08 AM
I think it was floating around long before Clint put it in print.

Chieftan, I could not agree more, as a medic I hauled around about as much weight as the RTO, the issued 45 was seldom used, got me a rifle real quick.

Kiln
April 27, 2012, 05:27 AM
I don't know who said it originally, but it's oft quoted by so-called tactical gurus that don't live in the normal world to show how über-tactical they are....:rolleyes:
QFT.

You also see this nonsense all over forums being spread by guys who claim they keep a gun in the shower in a ziplock bag "just in case" they are attacked while washing their sensitive parts.

45_auto
April 27, 2012, 07:00 AM
Unfortunately it's true, as Chieftain and Bikerdoc pointed out. If you've ever been in a rifle fight and all you have is a pistol, you'll quickly either become a believer or become dead.

Your self-defense SuperZootWilsonBaerGlockXDCZ is wimpy and inaccurate compared to ANY serious rifle out there.

(I keep my shower rifle in a plastic bag taped to my private parts, and you can't see the rifle! :neener:)

Kiln
April 27, 2012, 07:37 AM
Unfortunately it's true, as Chieftain and Bikerdoc pointed out. If you've ever been in a rifle fight and all you have is a pistol, you'll quickly either become a believer or become dead.

Your self-defense SuperZootWilsonBaerGlockXDCZ is wimpy and inaccurate compared to ANY serious rifle out there.

(I keep my shower rifle in a plastic bag taped to my private parts, and you can't see the rifle! :neener:)
If somebody does pull a rifle on you at a distance the idea of you being able to "fight your way" to your rifle seems incredibly unlikely if they're competent with their weapon of choice in any way shape or form.

Around the house I can see the benefit of a long gun, in fact I keep a Maverick 88 next to the bed for just that reason (I know it isn't a rifle but for close range I'd rather have a 12 guage). I'm not about to start carrying a rifle in my car thinking that if I'm getting shot at that I'm actually going to be able to fight my way to my vehicle using a pistol and actually deploy that rifle without being killed in the process.

Outside in the real world (not the elite force that resides on the interwebs) though, aside from those serving in law enforcement or military careers, statistics say that you're unlikely to be attacked with a rifle anyways.

45_auto
April 27, 2012, 07:57 AM
statistics say that you're unlikely to be attacked with a rifle anyways.

Outside in the real world, statistics say that you are unlikely to be attacked with ANYTHING.

But hey, if it makes you happy to think that you need a stick, pistol, rifle, cannon, gun by your bed, etc, etc, it's your choice!

Kiln
April 27, 2012, 08:09 AM
If you read the paper where I live you'd understand. Crimes happen within 5 miles of me all the time.

David E
April 27, 2012, 08:17 AM
In a military/battle/civil unrest situation, you're dang right I want a rifle!

But in the "normal" civilian world, as I mentioned, how does it make sense?

You're at the mall with wife and kids. You're attacked in the parking lot, but you're supposed to "use your pistol to fight your way back to the rifle" that's cased in the trunk of your car thats parked 40 yds away?

I don't think so.

Kiln
April 27, 2012, 08:24 AM
In a military/battle/civil unrest situation, you're dang right I want a rifle!

But in the "normal" civilian world, as I mentioned, how does it make sense?

You're at the mall with wife and kids. You're attacked in the parking lot, but you're supposed to "use your pistol to fight your way back to the rifle" that's cased in the trunk of your car thats parked 40 yds away?

I don't think so.
Exactly.

Even if you're standing right next to your car and somebody decides to attack you with a rifle, you're still not going to be able to grab the rifle out of your trunk or back seat in time to make a difference unless they're far enough away (and not a good shot) that you could just get into the car and drive off.

Sam1911
April 27, 2012, 08:32 AM
This is one of those things that illustrates so well the difference between the needs and tasks of military personnel and the armed citizen self-defender.

If you're a soldier or Marine engaged in fighting an armed conflict, you are guided by rules of engagement that allow, in fact require, you to participate in extended, long(er)-range hostilities. You're going to NEED a rifle to accomplish you job/duty (unless you're tasked with using even more powerful stuff ... like radios). If you're caught in a position where all you have on you is your handgun (and you even HAD a handgun) then you're fighting your way back to a rifle so you can continue to carry the fight to the enemy until that force is vanquished.

None of that has any direct analogy to civilian self-defense. There are hints of it here and there -- mostly in the "civil unrest" fantasies of some of the more ...enthusiastic... gun guys, where they're caught out in the yard by the lead element of the approaching mob and have to fight back into the house to grab a rifle and take up defensive positions at the bedroom window and pick off the main body of the attacking gang-banger posse ... or whatever.

But citizen self-defense is almost universally defined as fast, VERY short-range engagements between some good citizen just out "minding their own business" and one, two, or maybe a handful of attackers. Attackers who are out for quick monetary gain, usually, or at worst are looking for a soft victim for some process-predator assault. In these cases, the idea of a sustained fight in which you're offering a running active defense as you maneuver back to a strong-point and access more powerful weapons with which to drive off the assailants, just has no relevance.

We had a really interesting thread about this a year or two ago. One poster held firmly that he kept a rifle (SKS, I think) in his car, with the intent that, if he was attacked while out at the store or mall, he would use his handgun to fight his way back to the rifle stashed in his car.

My counter point was, "and then what?" Because if you have fought your way clear (or simply evaded) an active shooter situation, and you've made you way out into the parking lot to your car where you can get to your rifle. ... LEAVE! You've already successfully dealt with the self-defense issue.

We went 'round about it a few cycles with various "what ifs" thrown in. (What if my family is still in the mall and I've got to go back and find them? What if the shooter pursues me out into the parking lot? Etc.) But they all approached vanishingly small probability, and/or presented other more suitable solutions.

Self-defense encounters generally follow something pretty close to the "3 shots, 3 yards, 3 seconds" rule -- and your duty is to survive, escape, and evade. If you can't do that with your handgun, that rifle you're "fighting your way back to" doesn't even enter the picture.

So the idea of "...fight your way back..." is pretty much just a gung-ho soundbite that doesn't mean anything in a non-military context.

Loosedhorse
April 27, 2012, 09:34 AM
to fight your way to a rifle"He adds (http://www.americanrifleman.org/blogs/what-you-use-to-fight-your-way-to-a-handgun/), "which you shouldn't have left behind in the first place." :D

I think it's a useful phrase. Obviously, we carry handguns for convenience (or for compliance with the law where long guns cannot be carried legally). But...should I perhaps have a long gun available in the bedroom? In my car? Should I prefer a long gun as my go-to primary SD gun, in any place where it is practical to do that?

Questions worth considering.

wickedsprint
April 27, 2012, 10:58 AM
In a military/battle/civil unrest situation, you're dang right I want a rifle!

But in the "normal" civilian world, as I mentioned, how does it make sense?

You're at the mall with wife and kids. You're attacked in the parking lot, but you're supposed to "use your pistol to fight your way back to the rifle" that's cased in the trunk of your car thats parked 40 yds away?

I don't think so.

You "need" a different mall. :)

DammitBoy
April 27, 2012, 11:14 AM
Wait, you mean you guys don't have one of these in the shower?

http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/SHOWERGUN_2.jpg

Jorg Nysgerrig
April 27, 2012, 11:59 AM
Didn't we just have this discussion? ;)
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=458343

Vonderek
April 27, 2012, 12:15 PM
Unless you are in a Gun-Free Zone in which case you use your pencil to fight your way back to a stapler.

Kiln
April 27, 2012, 12:18 PM
Either way you'll never convince the elite tactical commando force that makes up at least 40% of this forum's population that they don't need to take along a rifle just in case of a Russian invasion ala Red Dawn. The crowd that is always saying "what if" and constantly planning contingencies for each and every scenario they can come up with.

The guys that really plan for these types of scenarios are the nut jobs that actually carry a Kel Tec Sub 2k carbine in a briefcase with two 30 round Glock mags and another Glock in their belt because they just know that that there will be some SHTF situation any day now.

Bushpilot
April 27, 2012, 12:33 PM
+1 Sam1911 Right on... Well stated... Some civilian "self defense" scenarios that people dream up are often so far fetched and unlikely that seriously preparing for them is ridiculous. I might as well start carrying a scuba tank in the back seat of my car just in case I drive off a bridge.

David E
April 27, 2012, 12:39 PM
So the idea of "...fight your way back..." is pretty much just a gung-ho soundbite that doesn't mean anything in a non-military context.

Ding Ding Ding!!!

Winner! Winner!

Chicken dinner!!

k soze
April 27, 2012, 12:43 PM
DammitBoy, great pic, but if... or should I say when, you are ambushed in the shower how do you get into that bag quickly enough to defend yourself?

You ned a knife sealed in a vacuum bag to open the bag for the rifle quicker. Maybe even scissors in a zip lock bag to open the knife in a bag....

Sam1911 and Kiln, I agree with your posts.

wickedsprint
April 27, 2012, 12:56 PM
I find it entertaining the types that only plan for the weapon aspect of the SHTF scenario. How many have ample food,water and adequate shelter as part of their plan?

Greg528iT
April 27, 2012, 01:01 PM
SAM1911.. there you go using common sense AGAIN.. :)
Well said. as usual.

This kind of came up earlier this week when I was at LGS, I picked up a Galco CCP holster, and they didn't have a "matching" magazine holster. I'm still on the fence on carrying reloads. It comes down to.. If I can't flee or hide until the police show up with 6 plus one I'm probably way deeper in trouble than I should have been.

Speaking of non reality based scenarios, watching NCIS on Wed. Denoso (sic) had another agent in a safe house. He sat in the easy chair, pulled out his pistol. Ummm big bad guy coming for you. WHERE IS YOUR M4?

Bushpilot
April 27, 2012, 01:03 PM
I find it entertaining the types that only plan for the weapon aspect of the SHTF scenario. How many have ample food,water and adequate shelter?

That's because it's more fun to buy guns then it is to go grocery shopping.....

k soze
April 27, 2012, 01:07 PM
I carry spare mags when I ware my shoulder holster, I don't expect to use them but they help balance the rig out.

You only need guns for SHTF because you can take what ever you want from the zombies.

Sam1911
April 27, 2012, 02:04 PM
I'll go on record as not in any way disparaging the idea of using a rifle, carbine, shotgun, etc. for home defense -- or, I guess, maybe as a "car/truck" gun (though the scenarios are pretty far-fetched). They can be really useful, capable tools.

My objection is to the phrasing of this old saw, which really hinges on the idea that your rifle is your "primary" weapon, and couples the idea that you "really shouldn't have set it down." Those things are true for infantry. They are NOT true for a citizen going about his life in a country at peace.

The nearest equivalent analogy that comes to mind is, "Your car is for driving back to your Mack dump truck, which you shouldn't have parked...." Sure, there are times you need a dump truck. But unless your JOB is delivery of bulk materials, a dump truck isn't your primary conveyance, it is unreasonable to believe you'd have one at any given moment, and there is no element of guilt or mistake in not accepting the detriments that forcing one into your day-to-day lifestyle would require. Your car (like your sidearm) is the capable and appropriate tool for the task at hand.

It is though we -- the armed citizen -- are judging ourselves based on the truisms of soldiers at war, like a taxi driver trying to live by the credos and requirements of construction aggregate haulers. It doesn't fit.

Greg528iT
April 27, 2012, 03:06 PM
to pretend to be on thread.. that saying is likely never to be pinned down to any one person or group other than sergeants of infantrymen.

I did not read your post to mean you were disparaging rifles / shotguns for their real roles. AND their usefulness IF you happen to have one. But JUST cause I can, I am goin got pick on your for..
But unless your JOB is delivery of bulk materials,
Have you seen a parking lot lately????? How many full sized trucks are there out there, when you KNOW it's just their daily driver. MOST of those trucks never seen any kind of full sized load of anything. If people (MEN) carried personal defense tools, like they pick out cars, we'd see countless rifles slung across men's back as they cruise thru the Lowes. :D

Sam1911
April 27, 2012, 03:11 PM
So...how many Mack dump trucks?

Toyota Corrola = Kel Tec. Ford F150 = Beretta 92. Mack TD714 = rifle.

Your point that we aren't very smart about our vehicles may certainly be sound, but I don't think it detracts too much from my analogy.

wickedsprint
April 27, 2012, 03:18 PM
I think the F350 is a better comparison since not to many people own a Mack truck as a hobby...the Mack is more akin to a crew served weapon.

There are however plenty of people convinced all they need is a 1 ton truck for all facets of their auto requirements, not unlike the rifle argument.

DammitBoy
April 27, 2012, 04:06 PM
DammitBoy, great pic, but if... or should I say when, you are ambushed in the shower how do you get into that bag quickly enough to defend yourself?



What, you don't shower with your scuba knife strapped to your calf? :scrutiny:

Seriously though, my carry is a Para P14 in .45 - although, I do have my Bennelli M1 Super 90 behind the back seat of my (work) truck.

Oh yeah, and my M6 scout in the bugout bag in the truck.

---

@wickedsprint - I have a months supply of food and water in my primary shelter. It came in real handy during Katrina. As did my firearms...

allaroundhunter
April 27, 2012, 06:25 PM
The only common application in a civilian world that I see for this phrase would be for a landowner on the US-Mexico border. Keep a rifle either on your person or in your vehicle at all times. The chances are higher that you will need it than any other citizen in the country.

If you run into a drug runner and only have a handgun, you WILL use it to fight your way back to your rifle. But that is not the common self-defense situation that most train for.

Old Fuff
April 27, 2012, 06:40 PM
I'm going to stick my neck out and say quite possibly Charles Askins around 1939. He and other Border Patrolmen in El Paso were in fights several times a week, and they made a point of carrying either a rifle or shotgun in addition to whatever handgun they chose. Askins, who was a world-class revolver marksman, considered that only a fool would go into any fight that was foreseen without a long-gun. In private he often explained this in very blunt terms. :uhoh:

DammitBoy
April 27, 2012, 06:40 PM
What about the korean shop owners who protected their property during the LA/Rodney King riots? They used rifles and shotguns for self-defense and it had nothing to do with any border...

There are probably several scenarios you haven't forseen that have as much likelyhood of taking place as your border war scenario.

allaroundhunter
April 27, 2012, 06:43 PM
What about the korean shop owners who protected their property during the LA/Rodney King riots? They used rifles and shotguns for self-defense and it had nothing to do with any border...
Which have since ended and have not re-erupted.

There are probably several scenarios you haven't forseen that have as much likelyhood of taking place as your border war scenario.

I would love to know what happens as often as armed drug runners illegally crossing the border. Considering this happens every day and every night, I really don't know of anything else that poses a danger that would warrant a civilian actually having to fight his (or her) way to a rifle for self defense. At least not happening every day.

It is 3 miles from El Paso, TX to Cuidad Juarez, Chihuahua, Mexico; which has had one of the highest murder rates in the world for the past several years. The murders are caused by drug wars, and yes, they do spill across the border more often than LA/Rodney King riots occur.


There are other things that would warrant a civilian fighting back to a rifle with a handgun, but I would not expect any of them to have a higher likelihood of happening than a fight on borderlands. Another example would be a natural disaster like Hurricane Katrina when it made landfall in New Orleans, but again, that is not as commonplace as what I have previously mentioned.

DammitBoy
April 27, 2012, 06:47 PM
So, you think there will never be riots anywhere in the U.S. ever again? Seems to be an unrealistic opinion.

I didn't expect to have to deal with hordes of refugees from New Orleans after a hurricane either...

Good thing I was prepared anyway, huh?

David E
April 27, 2012, 06:57 PM
If your corner of the world changes, then it's prudent to keep a loaded rifle handy.

Keywords: Loaded and Handy

allaroundhunter
April 27, 2012, 06:59 PM
So, you think there will never be riots anywhere in the U.S. ever again? Seems to be an unrealistic opinion.

Not what I said. But I ask again, what has as high of a likelihood as a landowner having to defend himself from drug runners that cross his land on a near daily basis?

k soze
April 27, 2012, 07:00 PM
I'm going to stick my neck out and say quite possibly Charles Askins around 1939. He and other Border Patrolmen in El Paso were in fights several times a week, and they made a point of carrying either a rifle or shotgun in addition to whatever handgun they chose. Askins, who was a world-class revolver marksman, considered that only a fool would go into any fight that was foreseen without a long-gun. In private he often explained this in very blunt terms. :uhoh:
You confused me by answering the OP

Old Fuff
April 27, 2012, 07:17 PM
You confused me by answering the OP

I'm sorry.... :o :o

It came about because of a total lack of good judgment... :uhoh:

I should have known better... :confused:

Hereafter I'll try to start all of the thread drift that I can... :D

Coyote3855
April 27, 2012, 08:26 PM
I don't know who said it first. You are taking it literally; try figuratively. It's in the same category as "Don't bring a knife to a gun fight," or "Better tried by 12 than carried by 6."

chieftain
April 28, 2012, 12:15 AM
Please accept the FACT that many of us who have been in combat feel a need, because of our experiences that we should have a rifle available to us, for our own reasons if not others.

I don't believe my Colt LtWgt Commander in 45acp of course, and one additional magazine on my belt, will be the weapon I want in every case. To that end I have a Marlin 336 with an additional 40 rounds of 30-30 in my vehicle.

I guess that makes me a commando to some folks here. (I actually was attached to the 42 Commando, Royal Marines in Malta, back about 40 years ago, after I got off the Drill Field. So I use the term Commando with some reverence. "Good Lads".)

If the experience you have, tells you that you will not need or want a rifle/shotgun, don't use one or get one. Folks not owning a rifle will most likely not effect me anymore than my having a rifle will effect them.

I understand the difference between probability and possibility, perfectly. I just find it interesting that many of those that do keep a rifle/shotgun available, have actually been in combat. Does that mean something? I think so, but then I am prejudiced. No doubt those of you that feel it is important to tell us we will not need our rifles, know what you know too.

Of course I could probably live my life without firearms at all. I choose not to, because my personal history studies and experience tell me that ain't a good idea.

Go figure.

Fred

Carl Levitian
April 28, 2012, 06:36 AM
"This is one of those things that illustrates so well the difference between the needs and tasks of military personnel and the armed citizen self-defender.

If you're a soldier or Marine engaged in fighting an armed conflict, you are guided by rules of engagement that allow, in fact require, you to participate in extended, long(er)-range hostilities. You're going to NEED a rifle to accomplish you job/duty (unless you're tasked with using even more powerful stuff ... like radios). If you're caught in a position where all you have on you is your handgun (and you even HAD a handgun) then you're fighting your way back to a rifle so you can continue to carry the fight to the enemy until that force is vanquished.

None of that has any direct analogy to civilian self-defense. There are hints of it here and there -- mostly in the "civil unrest" fantasies of some of the more ...enthusiastic... gun guys, where they're caught out in the yard by the lead element of the approaching mob and have to fight back into the house to grab a rifle and take up defensive positions at the bedroom window and pick off the main body of the attacking gang-banger posse ... or whatever.

But citizen self-defense is almost universally defined as fast, VERY short-range engagements between some good citizen just out "minding their own business" and one, two, or maybe a handful of attackers. Attackers who are out for quick monetary gain, usually, or at worst are looking for a soft victim for some process-predator assault. In these cases, the idea of a sustained fight in which you're offering a running active defense as you maneuver back to a strong-point and access more powerful weapons with which to drive off the assailants, just has no relevance.

We had a really interesting thread about this a year or two ago. One poster held firmly that he kept a rifle (SKS, I think) in his car, with the intent that, if he was attacked while out at the store or mall, he would use his handgun to fight his way back to the rifle stashed in his car.

My counter point was, "and then what?" Because if you have fought your way clear (or simply evaded) an active shooter situation, and you've made you way out into the parking lot to your car where you can get to your rifle. ... LEAVE! You've already successfully dealt with the self-defense issue.

We went 'round about it a few cycles with various "what ifs" thrown in. (What if my family is still in the mall and I've got to go back and find them? What if the shooter pursues me out into the parking lot? Etc.) But they all approached vanishingly small probability, and/or presented other more suitable solutions.

Self-defense encounters generally follow something pretty close to the "3 shots, 3 yards, 3 seconds" rule -- and your duty is to survive, escape, and evade. If you can't do that with your handgun, that rifle you're "fighting your way back to" doesn't even enter the picture.

So the idea of "...fight your way back..." is pretty much just a gung-ho soundbite that doesn't mean anything in a non-military context."
__________________
-- Sam

"...with liberty and justice for all." (Must be 18. Void where prohibited. Some restrictions may apply. Not available in all states.)
-D. Stanhope


Thank you Sam for a logical and well worded approach to an often illical and crazy subject.

The truth is, a heck of a lot of the hung ho gun BS floating around has little to do with real life. Sure, a AR is a better gun than say a Ruger LCP. But, the AR is not going to fit the side pocket of your Dockers. If we follow that kind of advise, then a Brinks armored car is a better vehicle to drive around in just in case you get in an accident. It's all a game of odds. The biggest one is, your very likely to go through your whole life and not need gun. Millions of people do it every day. It's good to be careful, and carry a nice compact weapon, but going to the length of carrying a rifle around in your car so as to fight your away back to it is getting over the line into paranoid area. Or juvenile Walter Mitty fantasies. Professional help may be needed.

beatledog7
April 28, 2012, 08:16 AM
I doubt if the OP asked his question so we could discuss the pros and cons of using a rifle for civilian SD or having one as superior firepower for those all-too-common mall parking lot melees.

Threads such as this one wander into bizarre "what if" self-defense scenarios because too many gun owners spend their time dreaming up justifications to shoot another person. They come up with the same scenarios that anti-gunners argue will be caused by gun ownership.

If you believe your carry handgun's primary purpose is to allow you reach the rifle in your vehicle and continue shooting, please turn in all your guns to the local police. Then go see an armed forces recruiter.

Flame shields up!

Sam1911
April 28, 2012, 09:47 AM
just find it interesting that many of those that do keep a rifle/shotgun available, have actually been in combat.Some have. Some haven't. I don't know that I've seen any even indirect assessment of the matter. Do all/some/most guys who've seen combat feel a need to have a rifle nearby in civilian life? I don't know. Do all/some/most of the guys who DO feel that need act on that need? Again, I don't know -- but it sure doesn't seem like it.

There's a HECK of a lot of combat veterans in the US. There do not seem to be anything like that number of people going armed with rifles. Even here, where you'd expect a higher percentage than any slice of "normal" society, few claim to do so.

These guys who have seen combat and feel a need to have a rifle close at hand (though their actual civilian life emergency usage of such is statistically minuscule) may also be expected to feel a need to keep other life-saving objects on hand. Objects that were super-important never to be without in combat. Do they keep blood type identifiers on hand? CELOX? Battle dressings? Several spare pairs of eye glasses? Those could be useful for more likely life-threatening emergencies than any gun -- certainly much more so than a rifle. Or is the rifle mostly valuable as a symbol/talisman?

Does that mean something? I think so, but then I am prejudiced.It certainly may mean something. It may mean several things.

Readyrod
April 28, 2012, 10:31 AM
People talk about the chance of this or that happening (fight your way to your rifle, ha ha ha) and laugh at those who, they think, overprepare. I read that Katrinablog guy's blog a few years ago and did his preps. I got a lot of flack for that. Then the Tohoku earthquake hit. Sure was glad to have the bug out bags when I was sitting out in the parking lot doing the aftershock dance. A few days later I bugged out to escape the fallout. Seems that the chances of running from nuclear meltdown aren't that far fetched after all. Got a lot of flack for running but later found out that one of the radioactive plumes missed us by about 10km. We were out of town when it hit.
The whole experience totally changed my point of view of what can happen. I now carry an emergency tool with me everywhere I go. I have a compass, a whistle, and a flashlight on my keychain. I don't have a bob, I have a bob system. People can kid me all they want but low probability high risk things do happen. So having a rifle to run to may not be such a far fetched thing.

DammitBoy
April 28, 2012, 11:15 AM
Yes, I have spare glasses in my bugout bag in the truck. I also have food/water, a first aid kit, jumper cables, sunglasses, bug spray, sunscreen, a compressor for inflating a tire, flares, tools, a fire extinguisher, several flashlights, spare ammo, maps, extra socks, and a change of clothing.

Those items do not mean I'm hoping for a fire, a flat tire, a medical emergency, or a vehicle breakdown anymore than my firearms mean I'm "hoping for a scenario where I can shoot somebody".

It simply means I've prepared more than most do for whatever life throws at me. In my experience you never know what the next thing is until after it happens. Like riots, hurricanes, earthquakes, or carjacking's.

Sam1911
April 28, 2012, 01:42 PM
It simply means I've prepared more than most do for whatever life throws at me. In And that certainly makes fine sense.

However, being prepared to handle emergencies -- and even having access to a long-arm should some need for that arise -- is not the same thing as applying the slogan "a pistol is for fighting your way back to the rifle you never should have put down" to daily life.

Old Fuff
April 28, 2012, 02:08 PM
-- is not the same thing as applying the slogan "a pistol is for fighting your way back to the rifle you never should have put down" to daily life.

A good point: If Col. Askins was the one to said it, it was in the context of law enforcement officers who had to seek out trouble at a time and place where gunfights were the norm, not the exception.

DammitBoy
April 28, 2012, 02:09 PM
No Sam, but it means I do have a longarm to fight back to if the need arises. It's simply another preparation, like having a fire extinguisher.

There were several silly comments about preppers and advocates for long arms being crazy or looking for someone to shoot in some shtf end-of-the-world scenario.

I've never had to use the fire extinguisher in my truck. That doesn't make me a crazy hoping for a fire to put out. The same applies to my shotgun/rifle...

wickedsprint
April 28, 2012, 05:25 PM
I've always understood the comment to show the silliness of arguing 9mm vs 45 as used in the military since it's generally a secondary weapon.

In daily life...a rifle is not really practical...but in my house it gives piece of mind since I'll likely have some warning to give me time to grab it.

MistWolf
April 28, 2012, 10:16 PM
It's an axiom to live by, not a hard & fast rule and it's not the only one. It also conflicts with the axiom about warriors fighting with whatever they have on hand and the greatest weapon a warrior has is the mind- and while each conflicts with the other, they are all true.

In a fight, rifles are greater than pistols just as pistols are greater than swords. If I knew I was going into a firefight, given the choice, I'd go someplace else and avoid it altogether! But if I knew I had to go into a firefight, I'd pick a rifle, even in close quarters.

You make up a set of rules to live by and you apply them as needed.

Some of my own rules-
"A man should always have a good pair of boots"
"A man should have a good knife"
"Books, Bullets & Beans make for a good home"
"Home is where my wife is"
"Adopt a Jeep"
"Who you are when no one is around to police you is who you really are"
"Enjoy your children today, they'll never be this age again"
"Learn to shoot the pistol, shotgun and rifle, not the Glock, Benelli or AR"
..and a few others. Some are hard & fast like "Thou shalt not steal". Some are guidelines to be applied as needed.

Using your handgun to fight your way back to your rifle is actually pretty good advice. It means you have someplace to fall back on that greater resources and options. It means you have a plan. To use the example of the rifle being in your car at the mall, it means you and your family know where you'll be going, will have greater resources and more flexible choices including a vehicle with which to exit the fight.

It's all a matter of perspective. If you think "fighting your way back to your rifle" is ridiculous because it simply means someone thinks all they have to do is reach their rifle and they'll be able to have the firepower to gain the upper hand in a fight, you're no smarter than anti-gunners frightened that allowing John Q. Public to carry will lead to wild west style shootouts.

To answer the original question, who coined the phrase, I don't know. I do know that it's something, in one form or another, I've always heard from people I respected and admired

Kiln
April 28, 2012, 10:34 PM
This is one reason that I tend to dislike this forum, mall ninjas galore.

MistWolf
April 28, 2012, 10:53 PM
If that's in response to my post, then you missed the point.

I'd rather be a... a live Mall Ninja than...than a dead... Not a Mall Ninja!

Smile, that was humor. A chuckle would be better

Loosedhorse
April 28, 2012, 11:10 PM
I think most of us realize that a long gun is a better defensive weapon than a handgun. But we also know that because of practicalities and legalities, we might not start a gunfight with a long gun.

Fine. I also realize that when a gunfight starts, I might not be behind cover, and that the gunfight might end before I can get to cover. But I should still try to get to cover if it's available.

Similarly, I realize that my first shot in a gunfight might not be aimed via the sights on my gun (either because I need a weapon-retention position, or I need a quick point-shooting shot). But I should still transition to sight-aimed fire if I can.

And if I start the fight with a handgun, I should transition to a long gun as soon as I can. If the long gun is available, and if the fight lasts that long.

None of those three transitions to me seem inconsistent with good sense in self-defense. YMMV.

Kiln
April 28, 2012, 11:51 PM
If that's in response to my post, then you missed the point.

I'd rather be a... a live Mall Ninja than...than a dead... Not a Mall Ninja!

Smile, that was humor. A chuckle would be better
It wasn't. I was just making an observation about the forums.

Often lines like the one that sparked this debate are repeated by people who don't live in the real world. Guys who constantly plan for ridiculous scenarios that are so unlikely to happen that they're more likely to be hit by lightning.

MistWolf
April 29, 2012, 05:37 AM
Sometimes we make the mistake of thinking the justification of keeping an AR with 10 loaded magazines in the vehicle is in case zombies really do make a mass attack instead of admitting to ourselves it's simply there to provide other options if needed and to spend more time shooting instead of loading magazines when the opportunity for an impromptu range session presents itself.

Hey, it's happened to me!

SFsc616171
April 29, 2012, 10:10 AM
Clint Smith. He is on YouTube saying this.

45_auto
April 29, 2012, 10:25 AM
Well there you go! If it's on you-tube, then no one could have said it before him! :rolleyes:

If you enjoyed reading about "Who said?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!