Martial Art that includes firearms

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tactical shooting is a martial art. That aside, we practiced disarming people with all fashion of weapon in Taekwondo. We didn't allow students to train with any form of weapons until they achieved at least 1st degree Black belt.
 
I remember a few years ago that a friend of mine was heavy into martial arts and I seem to remember a few videos of Kempo where the martial artist was holding a (training) firearm.
 
Cha Chunk. The sound a 870 makes while chambering a shell. Thats all the martial arts I need. I studied Kempo for several years and I could disarm you but you have to come at me like this.:D IMHO martial arts is great for the training and discipline but worthless in real life situations. :(
 
Pretty sure the topic was a form of martial arts that included the use of a firearm. Personally, I like Krav Maga over Kemp for disarming. Not that I would do anything other than squeeze the trigger myself. My biggest step for martial arts with a handgun would be to hold out the weak hand as a sacrificial offering while I fired cross body with my strong hand.
 
You are correct, Dulvarian. The question is regarding Martial Arts that include firearms rather than simply glom them on to training.

Seems like things are stuck in the sword/staff/bow days and the only weapons trained are the old ones.

Perhaps Fairbairn and Sykes were the progenitors of this type of training.
 
Within every man is the ability to invent his own instinctual process of precision control of an object for any use he may have in mind.


That being said, I used to practice with my roomate and airsoft guns - the ways to not have your gun taken away, and how to use it at knifing distances.

I learned a lot from this, because my roomate didn't appreciate being shot repeatedly with an airsoft gun, and would aggressively try to stop such behavior from continuing.

My goal was the opposite, and the results were in my favor.

At one point, he wanted the thing so badly, that I threw it a slight distance away from us, too far away to simply reach down and grab, not too far away to make it an unrealistic idea.

He went for it, and I stabbed him in the back with a plastic knife to illustrate his mistake.

Strange world we live in, but the concepts of life are all you really need to be good at what you're trying to do. Guns were designed with distance in mind, and you should appreciate this fact.
 
There is very much an active movement forward in the wold of Martial Arts in regards to firearms.
Take some time to look it up... Hojutsu Ryu. Founded by Soke Jeff Hall, whom I've had the opportunity to study under for a short time. Locally we are lucky in the respect that Doug Tangen and Steven Ryan are both black belts in this fine art and take an active role in promoting and teaching.
If you're lucky enough to have an instructor nearby I highly recommend this endeavor.
However if you're curious and would like to take a look at the development of this fine art, Soke Hall will travel for demonstrations and introductions.

Dutch1911

David Sidwell
1/*
 
MA is great if that is all you have like if you live in NYC. I use MA as a level of Force ie with Drunks ect that do not reach the level of Deadly force under Texas Law. I carry a lock back knife, pepper spray a cane and a 38. I studyed several MA over the years and in my 40's are looking at studing Tia Che. On top of the Judo and Kempo I have taken in the past.
 
Take a look at Combat Silat, as taught by Guru Sean Stark. He does believe in combining firearms with understanding open hand and blade techniques -but not at any early levels of Silat study.
http://www.combat-silat.net/curriculum.asp?menu=senjata

I believe that firearms knowledge IS a martial art, and that many serious firearms instructors practice both. But given this, you have to understand that all instructors need to make a living so a martial artist isn't going to say "get a gun" in his first lesson, -nor will a gun trainer say "learn karate" in his entry-level courses.

Something I remember from the 1980's when I asked my Sifu why one needed to learn open-handed techniques first when guns and knives could do more damage and end a fight faster. His response was: "what if you drop it?"
 
13877.gif
 
I think that
Marine Recon...
was still the best answer. I have seen the army combatives stuff where you get attacked hand to hand while in full battle rattle and carrying a weapon but I never made it that far. Maybe someone here has though?
 
No, it was like you were clearing a building and wearing all the crap and a boxing helmet (or whatever those things are called) and then some guy jumps out and starts punching you and slams you down and you end up having to wrestle him into "compliance".
 
If there were a martial art that included firearms, the value of such moves as the trigger-pull would be so much greater than the value of all other moves that the practitioners of the martial art would spend 99% percent of their time mastering the gun-related moves and would neglect the others. Consequently, the gun-jitsu discipline would become a bunch of old fat guys at a firing range. And we've already got that.
 
a martial art is anything martial (fighting) oriented....and shooting is a form of fighting, thus your own gunmanship is a martial art.

If you want to learn how to retain a weapon during a toe-to-toe shuffle, then look into some tactical trainings that pertain to this specifically. Otherwise, pick up some hand-to-hand martial arts. I'm fond of freestyle wrestling and boxing myself....I'm out of general practice, but I can still do it well.
 
If there were a martial art that included firearms, the value of such moves as the trigger-pull would be so much greater than the value of all other moves that the practitioners of the martial art would spend 99% percent of their time mastering the gun-related moves and would neglect the others. Consequently, the gun-jitsu discipline would become a bunch of old fat guys at a firing range. And we've already got that.

This is just not true. Stance, awareness, draw are all more important than "trigger pull." Using a gun in a fight is very different from practicing at a range. Like other MAs, footwork is probably the most important aspect.

That's like saying "If there was a martial art devoted to standing fighting only, moves such as the punch would be so important we would have nothing but teenagers hitting punching bags, and we already have that."
 
What irks me about this concept is the assumption that in order to be a "martial art," shooting must be done with robes, belts and Japanese or Chinese names. It *ALREADY IS* a martial art. You could call the Chapman, Weaver, Isosceles stances by funky Chinese names if you want I suppose or call them "katas" But whatever the name, it's the same thing. These and many other shooting techniques were developed in the west because we integrated firearms into our war and lives much more than they did in Asia. That's why we don't don white robes or bow to the range master before shooting.

That said, I think it would be fantastic if shooters integrated more physical activities into the sport. The Biathlon is one example. I like to ride the bike 15 miles to the range and back and incorporate a hike as well to make shooting part of an overall physical regimen. At the very least, we ought to be getting off the cursed bench more!
 
Last edited:
What irks me about this concept is the assumption that in order to be a "martial art," shooting must be done with robes, belts and Japanese or Chinese names.


But I think that's what the OP meant. If not, why the question? Anyway, once you've got a gun (and a reason to use it), I think all the other stuff becomes largely valueless. The gun so much more effective than anything else that punches, kicks, holds, throws, knives, sticks, and whatnot are reduced to near zero.


Anything other than a gun is only useful if you're in a situation in which you can't use deadly force. This pretty much relegates knives, sticks, and whatnot to curio status for self-defense.


There are many people who post on this BB who swear up and down that whipping out your gun and shooting unarmed people is just fine and that the police will give you a medal for that. I suspect these people are wrong for a variety of reasons. It's these situations in which the gun becomes useless at best and more likely a liability. That's when you need your hand-to-hand skills.


If the situation calls for the use of deadly force, then the gun is king, pope, and emperor. If not, then it's an embarrassing lump of steel on your belt and you'd better keep it out of the action while you try to kick, punch, or use your vibrating palm. Is there a "martial art" in the Bruce Lee sense that combines the two? I don't think so.
 
I see what you're saying.

Absolutely no robes or bowing should be involved, though. Krav maga is the only one that looks realistic enough. This would not be for sparring or trophies, but for real life situations. Unfortunately from what I've seen of that sport they concentrate on disarms when it comes to guns, not presentations and shooting. To integrate firearms into the technique you'd need to know how to protect your own firearm and how to make the shift from non lethal to lethal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top