Close Quarters

[Good Ol' Boy]

The "Do you carry with a round in the chamber" thread got me thinking. Is there a threshold or point at which you would not deploy your sidearm, and instead resort to hand to hand, with the assumption your gun might do more harm than good?

To be clear, I carry with a round in the chamber, but if you're engaged to the point you can't rack the slide I'm not sure I'd deploy my sidearm to begin with. Probably go for my knife, which is also always on me and easily dispatched one handed.

Obviously scenarios vary but in general what are your thoughts on the subject?

This is just a thought exercise for someone new to carrying.

 

[Telekinesis]

Get some training in shooting from retention and one handed malfunction drills. That'll solve most issues with "he's too close" type of things.

For some real close gun fighting, take a look at SouthNarc's training (there are some videos of older classes on YouTube). They do shooting from arms length, the clinch, and the guard. Doesn't get much closer than that.

So to answer your question, no. There's no distance that I'd not use my gun. However if I'm in a position where access to my gun is difficult or impossible (unlikely because I carry appendix which lets me access the gun with both hands) I may choose to go for another weapon. That's where having a knife or second gun can come in handy.

 

[Good Ol' Boy]

Thanks for the references. There were some interesting videos to watch.

However, rolling around or entangled like in the videos I'm going to rely on my years of Kempo and my knife. If the opportunity presented itself where I could use my side arm then obviously I would.

But a lot of the skirmishes I watched in those videos could've easily been stopped early on with some simple knife work.

Personally I don't want to try and introduce a gun in many of the scenarios in those videos I saw. I feel like there is less chance of a blade being redirected towards me than a gun, especially if properly dispatched. Nevertheless I can appreciate the training in those videos.

Anxious to here other responses...

 

[lemaymiami]

The simple truth is that tactics are still far more important than weaponry in a close (or distant) deadly encounter.... Where and how you position yourself when trouble is coming is critical. When you're at bad breath ranges with someone who really intends harm then that's when you break away or do whatever is needed to bring whatever weapon you're going to use into play. Yes, at a certain point the firearm in your gear may not be your best survival option - but it's up to you to keep that from happening -even if it means running backwards to give you enough clearance to draw and fire.

I've said on more than one occasion on this forum and other venues that it's important that anyone carrying a sidearm get some training on weapons retention as well. Pretty good idea to remember that some of the baddest folks you'll ever encounter never carry a weapon -they're planning on taking yours.... and it's all too easy to do if you know how. I've seen video footage of folks in prison doing disarming techniques in the prison yard (and this was years and years ago -lord only knows what's being learned today....).

 

[Coyote3855]

At 72, I am not going hand to hand despite many years of martial arts training, nor am I going to deploy my knife. If I have the opportunity to get to my knife, I probably have time and opportunity to draw my handgun. I understand the usefulness of a blade as a "get off me tool." As lemaymiami notes, situational awareness and creating distance is an excellent strategy. Hard to generalize these "what if" situations as I expect every one to be different and require a different response.

 

[JellyJar]

This past June I had cataract surgery in both eyes. I now have IOLs ( inter ocular lenses, hard artificial lenses ) in place of my natural lenses. Any sharp blow to my head, especially around my eyes could lead to permanent vision loss in one of both eyes. Therefore, any chance of going hand to hand with an attacker is now completely out of the question.

 

[easy]

Is there a threshold or point at which you would not deploy your sidearm, ...with the assumption your gun might do more harm than good

If this is your thought process, why carry at all? Is not the idea of CC to be able to protect yourself?

As stated by others, distance is your friend. If they are close enough for physical combat it's already too late.

 

[GarySTL]

I'm 70, if it goes hand to hand I'm a goner.

 

[strambo]

The "Do you carry with a round in the chamber" thread got me thinking. Is there a threshold or point at which you would not deploy your sidearm, and instead resort to hand to hand, with the assumption your gun might do more harm than good?

Yes, but not for the reason you state.

First off, a fight or violent situation is just that. Not a "gun fight, knife fight, stick fight, ground fight" etc. Just 2 humans trying to injure the other.

Tools are tools and can have certain advantages (and disadvantages) depending on the circumstances. If the threat is across the room, a firearm is a great tool as it allows you to injure them at distance. Otherwise, you got to sprint over to them before even starting with anything else. If the threat is at arms length, any tool (or no tool) can be just as quick and lethal. Impact weapons let us break things harder than our bodies and give us reach. Knives give us reach inside them allowing us to open up their vascular system and organs. Hands/feet are blunt force objects limited by our structure and reach but very effective when employed with all our weight behind them and targeted at areas on their bodies a lot weaker than what we are using to strike with. Guns (in extreme close quarters) have their range completely nullified and are further hampered by being uni-directional. They do retain the advantage of causing internal wounds with only a finger movement, good injury to work ratio. Downside, unless it is a CNS hit, the injury will not have an immediate effect (same goes for the knife).

No tool is "deadlier" than the other, including bare hands. Lethal is lethal. Stomp on someone's skull with all your weight after knocking them to the ground and the result is the same as a bullet to the head. Now, few people know how to use their hands that efficiently...but then we way over-estimate the "deadliness" of firearms as well. 8/10 handgun shootings are not lethal. Hit rates are 20-30% at very close ranges. Same for knives, people stabbed a whole bunch and surviving.

For me, the decision revolves around if a tool is already in my hand or if I can get it in my hand without them being able to injure me in that time period.

For example: if they are at typical "mugging" range, and have a gun or knife in hand and mine is in the holster, I'm not going for it. In the time it takes me to draw, they can shoot or stab me multiple times. I'm also assuming I'll be moving while drawing and firing from retention (which I practice). The problem remains that for the 1-2 seconds it takes to get that first shot off, they are unaffected and free to injure me. Assuming the first round hits, unless they drop instantly (highly unlikely), we're still in the fight anyway.

A much better option is to use that 1-2 seconds to immediately step in (throw all your body weight at them) and strike a vulnerable part of their anatomy that is accessible. Examples would be the classic heel palm to the chin (again with full weight behind it) or to the eyes, throat etc.

For extra credit, you could land this blow with your support hand while drawing a tool with your other hand. Don't short-change the strike though.

This post is not adequate to visually convey what I'm talking about, but striking in this manner can be done by senior citizens with little training and has. It doesn't rely on speed, strength, or skill. Just stepping through them and making contact with a weak part of their anatomy that isn't rated to handle 100+ lbs of mass.

 

[strambo]

If this is your thought process, why carry at all? Is not the idea of CC to be able to protect yourself?

As stated by others, distance is your friend. If they are close enough for physical combat it's already too late.

Well, if you find yourself in fear for your life, odds are probably near 100% they will be close enough for physical combat. I mean, how are you going to get jumped or mugged etc. from a distance?

Awareness/avoidance, yeah I get that, but that allows you to avoid the altercation. How do you envision getting in a violent situation, resulting in you shooting them, that didn't start at physical combat range? Sure, it is possible, but not probable. Criminals aren't initiating violent assaults from across the street. They don't tip their hand until their prey is too close to get away. Have a bad day with your awareness down and the prey is you, can happen to any of us.

Put another way, what is/are the realistic scenarios where you have to shoot to defend yourself, can't avoid it, but are still at some distance away? I know it's possible, I just think it is likely to be very close...or you were able to avoid it already.

 

[Hanzo581]

If the draw doesn't happen before physical contact is made I am not so sure I'd go for the gun. At that point you'd be wrestling to draw and then fighting over control of the gun.

I am not a small guy, so I would hope I could create some distance. But no one knows till they are in that situation.

I have been watching a lot of "Active Self Protection" on youtube, they analyse a lot of self defense situations, I'd recommend checking it out.

 

[RX-79G]

A handgun makes a decent blunt object.

 

[shafter]

I wouldn't go for a knife unless going for my gun was impossible for whatever reason. If they can turn my gun against me they can do the same with a knife. Unless your attacker is very skilled it isn't that difficult to make enough space to deploy your gun.

The possibility of a scenario where that would be a concern is reasonably high I'd say. Sometimes it's impossible to perceive a threat until it's right on top of you.

 

[Trent]

Regarding knife vs. gun and close quarters fighting, watch this video. NSFW and very graphic, but telling.

The synopsis for those who don't want to see blood;

Agitated suspect armed with a knife is surrounded by 5 cops with riffles, in the woods. He takes an opportunity and begins attacking the officers. Over the course of a half minute or so, he grievously wounds 4 of 5 officers (one lethally so). Officers opened fire on him but it took 16 seconds of gunfire (from rifles) to finally bring him down - meanwhile he was still attacking and stabbing officers, running from one to the next.

https://www.full30.com/video/9030f86490b70a13d01f3244842a91c2

Consider what the implications are for this in the real world. If someone close by is intent on killing you, or another close to you, and they are armed with a knife, a gun may not be nearly as effective as you think it would be.

Such is the logic behind the self defense trio... I train in hand to hand fighting, *and* I carry a knife, *and* I carry a gun.

This training gives me all sorts of options for all sorts of engagements.

If you ONLY train in how to use a gun, but don't have any hand to hand training, you're going to be in for a real shock if you get involved in a close quarters hand to hand event someday.

 

[shafter]

Such is the logic behind the self defense trio... I train in hand to hand fighting, *and* I carry a knife, *and* I carry a gun.

This training gives me all sorts of options for all sorts of engagements.

If you ONLY train in how to use a gun, but don't have any hand to hand training, you're going to be in for a real shock if you get involved in a close quarters hand to hand event someday.

This, because we don't get to pick the time, place, or how it all goes down. You're either ready or not.

 

[Good Ol' Boy]

Strambo and Trent those are exactly the responses I was looking for in this discussion. Both great advice.


Trent, sooo much wrong with that video on the officers part from the get go.

 

[RX-79G]

I think trying to choose between knife or gun in a split second would be debilitating. You can use a gun to bludgeon, you can use a gun to "stab" via a contact shot. But if the range is so close that you aren't sure which weapon to use, you are going to waste time deciding.

 

[Hangingrock]

The following titled book: gun Fight An Intergraded Approach To Shooting And Fighting In Close Quarters by Richard Nance, From Loose-leaf Law Publications, INC wwwLosseleafLaw.com (800) 647-5547 Useful information in a logical progression that covers the different facets of close quarter fighting.

 

[strambo]

I think trying to choose between knife or gun in a split second would be debilitating. You can use a gun to bludgeon, you can use a gun to "stab" via a contact shot. But if the range is so close that you aren't sure which weapon to use, you are going to waste time deciding.

You shouldn't be making a conscious choice, rather moving in accordance with your training.

The problem with the current training paradigms is you for the most part can only get training in "silos." H2H course with no shooting. Shooting course with no striking etc. So that seemless integration in training never happens, thus it certainly won't in combat.

There are exceptions, but they could be counted on one hand probably, Southnarc's ECQC course probably being the first and best known example.

Good point about the pistol as a tool that can be used for more than just launching projectiles. How many people have ever stepped in and muzzle-punched a target in training? If you've never trained it, you won't think to do it under stress, that's for sure.

 

[browningguy]

I'd go for the gun every time, no doubts, no second thoughts. If you attack me you have a high likelihood of getting shot, I'm old, have arthritic knees, not a ninja, so it's going to turn in to a gunfight.

As already mentioned, if you are going to decide whether to go for a gun or a knife you've already lost. I may have to fight for a short while, but I'll be fighting to get my gun on target.

 

[RX-79G]

You shouldn't be making a conscious choice, rather moving in accordance with your training.

I don't know what you mean about training. If I understood the OP, you must make a very conscious decision based on the situation which weapon to draw. I don't see how that thought process could be automatic when it is such a unique situation in the first place.

After you make the decision, training can take over.

 

[Trent]

RX-79G

In a violent hand to hand close quarters combat you don't get time to think.

The only time I've been in a lethal encounter it lasted less than 2 seconds and started with me getting tackled, on my back, with the guy on top of me, one arm holding the guys wrist that had the knife, pinned under his weight, and the other arm partially free across my chest. Two elbows to the jaw later with the free arm, it was over. Lights out for him. The first didn't connect well but made him lean back and I used the opportunity to roll him partially off me. The second elbow hit with authority and the concrete his head bounced off of finished the event.

There was no way a gun OR a knife would have helped me.

There was no time to make conscious decisions about a damned thing. Only reactions, and reactions are developed through training.

 

[Sheepdog1968]

In terms of being able to draw, the Tuller principle comes into play. Basically an average individual can cover 21 feet in about two seconds. You loose at least a quarter second before your body can react to the visual stimulus. As such, it is really difficuot to be able to draw and defend yourself within 21 feet (get those feet of yours moving to buy your more time). Louis Awerbuck used to demonstrate this in his pistol class.

 

[strambo]

I don't know what you mean about training. If I understood the OP, you must make a very conscious decision based on the situation which weapon to draw. I don't see how that thought process could be automatic when it is such a unique situation in the first place.

After you make the decision, training can take over.

Except a violent attack at close range isn't unique (happens all the time), so how, if at all, do you train for it?

If all you do is firearms training, then you'd go for the gun whether it made sense or not because it is all you know (hope you have one.)

If you train to draw a knife at close range instead, you'd do that.

If you train to strike first at very close range, then draw as needed, you'd do that.

If you train to quickly assess then consciously decide to draw a knife or a gun as you suggest, I guess you'd do that...but I haven't encountered anyone who trains like that, it would be very inefficient.

If you have no training at all for this, then you've got the classics; submit, posture, flight or fight (inefectlly and un-trained.)

One of the points of training and preparation (of which this sub-forum plays a role,) is to think through things ahead of time, then train the best response for that situation. Do the conscious deciding now, not then.

For example, in my first post of the thread I mentioned I'm not drawing anything if it starts close and something isn't already in my hand. I'm going to use that second or two of time to close and strike. I have trained this for probably thousands of hours, there won't be a conscious decision. The decision will come just prior if I have a chance (fight, flight, posture, submit).

 

[Trent]

Yeah the 21 foot rule is well known, Sheepdog - but keep in mind that range was developed with officers wearing guns on duty belts. It does NOT take in to account having to draw a concealed weapon with a cover garment in place! Drawing a concealed handgun may take appreciably longer.

If I recall the distance was:

Under 15 foot - you're stabbed 100% of the time.

15 foot with hand not on gun at start - you are stabbed well over 50% of the time

15 foot WITH HAND ON GUN at start - one in five can get a single shot off before being stabbed

21 feet (with or without hand on gun) - most folks can get two COM shots off on the advancing individual.

Now add in a cover garment? You might realistically need 25 feet or more, even if you are good. And if you aren't? And you snag on something or fumble? (Maybe you're wearing a winter coat over everything...)

Keep in mind that "21 foot rule" was also designed for officers confronting a dangerous subject. They *KNOW* they might be in danger and they are fully aware of the bad guy and focusing their attention on them, their body movements, etc. In other words, they are clearly in the red zone on thinking and their body is already amped up and ready to move to defend themselves.

But most of us are not officers who are knowingly confronting a dangerous subject.


We're just normal folks going on about our daily lives.

By the time you realize you are in a fight, realistically, the person is already swinging at you or rushing you. Your first visual indication that a person is a threat might be when the guy standing next to you in the line at the gas station puts a gun to your head. Or the person you walk past on the sidewalk decides "hey, you're getting mugged".

No, facing someone down in a parking lot at 20+ feet away .. that's not likely to be how things will go when you are defending yourself. Your first clue that you are getting attacked very well might be GETTING HIT BY SOMETHING HARD THAT YOU DID NOT SEE COMING.

And then what? What if the opening plays out like it did when I was attacked and you are nearly fully pinned on the ground with a bigger guy on top of you?

Guns are great for self defense tools BUT they are only ONE SMALL PART of the equation. They will work in certain situations, and in others they will either be completely useless OR may very well pose a threat to YOU.

Folks who say they are too old or whatever for self defense, you really need to stop and rethink that. An old person can still crush a mans skull with a sturdy cane. An old person can still hit vulnerable soft spots that will make an attacker not be able to attack you anymore. You don't have to be strong, or fast, or spry to jab your finger in someone's eye or smack them in the nose to cause their eyes to water up. You can still hit their windpipe, or put your knee their genitals. Even if you can't lift your leg waist height, you can still kick them in the knee.

If you go through life ONLY prepared to use a gun for self defense, you are setting yourself up for a real bad time if you find yourself in an encounter where the gun is practically worthless.

I'm a concealed carry instructor, multi discipline certified NRA instructor, etc, etc, but even so, I will be completely honest with folks and say "the gun is not your first tool in a fight. YOU are the first tool in the fight. The gun is only there if the situation warrants it, and it very well might not."

I make sure every last student that comes through my classroom has a VERY clear understanding that wearing a gun does not make them invincible or suddenly turn them in to Superman. I make sure EVERY last student leaves with the words "make sure you also pursue hand to hand training" ringing in their ears.

Knowing how to handle yourself in a fight that starts out with a grapple is VITAL to any fight. Your very survival may depend not on how well you can put lead on target, but rather, how good you are at buying yourself time and distance.

If you can't realistically buy yourself any time or distance, if you lack the knowledge for handling a hand to hand encounter, the gun you carry may very well be worthless to you someday when it comes time to defend yourself. If you can't win that time and distance that you need to employ it, you won't be able to.

Anyway, off my soapbox.

Go learn some hand to hand skills - it will complement your gun-fu nicely.

ETA: My 83 year old grandpa may be old and slow, but I still wouldn't want to take a right cross from the guy. He'd plant my butt right there if he connected.