Would you ever use your bayonet for home defense/hunting?

[bikerdoc]

Have not visited since post 19.
Has this not been eloquently refuted in posts 42, 63, 64, and 71?

Ok here we go again. Anything can be used as a weapon. Resorting to expedient weapons means your best weapon - the brain - has failed to create a layered defense, well thought out and easily implemented. If Situational awareness, avoidance, evading, escaping, fail then you should be better armed and trained to stop the threat than using a bayonet. Planning is how to avoid a fight, training is how to win one, quickly.

Despite all that "the spirit of the bayonet is to kill" training we got in basic in the early 60's. I did not want to get that close. Eviscerated humans bleed a lot, they evacuate their bowels, and lose control of their bladder, they scream and the smell is terrible. Stabbing someone with any edged object takes a terrible toll on you physically, mentally, and emotionally.

Just my .02.

 

[Mp7]

Whatever at hand is perfect when shtf.

Though i´d rather have it not mounted
but as a hand weapon.


It comes down to, what do u have and how do u practice?

Someone who practices escrima, with a bayonet
will be way better of than someone with a very well
balanced shortsword - and NO practice.

m
s
toolset.

 

[JShirley]

I've avoided opening this thread until now.

It didn't even occur to me that the OP might have been "while on the rifle". I naturally assumed you meant unmounted, as a knife. A pointy, optimal-only-for-thrusting knife.

That's just silly. And that's coming from someone who knows the spear is the most effective short-range manual weapon.

Even most of our military guys don't carry bayonets anymore. In an age of dependable repeating firearms, there is almost never a point. Our medpacks or even our stupid gas masks are considered much more vital.

John

 

[Sobel]

Have not visited since post 19.
Has this not been eloquently refuted in posts 42, 63, 64, and 71?

Ok here we go again. Anything can be used as a weapon. Resorting to expedient weapons means your best weapon - the brain - has failed to create a layered defense, well thought out and easily implemented. If Situational awareness, avoidance, evading, escaping, fail then you should be better armed and trained to stop the threat than using a bayonet. Planning is how to avoid a fight, training is how to win one, quickly.

Despite all that "the spirit of the bayonet is to kill" training we got in basic in the early 60's. I did not want to get that close. Eviscerated humans bleed a lot, they evacuate their bowels, and lose control of their bladder, they scream and the smell is terrible. Stabbing someone with any edged object takes a terrible toll on you physically, mentally, and emotionally.

Just my .02.

I have to ask your thoughts on this. Our soldiers most likely never will have to kill a human being with a knife and i understand they see their friends shot , blown up, and the like. They get ptsd, but do you honestly think barbarians, Romans, medieval knights, pretty much all warriors up to ww1 did? I'm thinkin they may have n ww1 tho. I just feel like humans have become soft as we have become more reliant on technology.

 

[JShirley]

I just feel like humans have become soft as we have become more reliant on technology.

We're coming off the rails here, topic-wise, but that's not a very well considered position. Some of the "hardest" (at least, in the way you mean it) guys I've known, the guys who I stood by to support while they did snatch-and-grabs in the heart of a foreign country, were also some of the most reliant on technology, like the three different kinds of thermal scopes we had in our tower.

A close study of PTSD shows that it is rarely the violence we perform that causes the condition- it's the imminent threat of our own deaths.

Study up on the subject, and then, we can debate it at leisure. I'm not going to have a battle of wits with an unarmed foe.

John

 

[JVoutilainen]

I've avoided opening this thread until now

A wise move.

I think I'll follow suit, from now on.

 

[hso]

Sobel,

You've been informed by people with real training and experience with a bayonet mounted on a rifle that they are too unwieldy for home defense. You've been informed by people recently and currently in service that they are not used for MOUT. You've been informed by people who study western and asian blade fighting that they would not use them. And you've been informed by current and former LE and Security personnel that they wouldn't use a bayonet on a rifle. Historically the bayonet was used in an open field combat setting. During the last instance in which troops were trained extensively in the use of the rifle mounted bayonet and also employed it, WWI, the closest analogue to your Home Defense scenario, trench warfare, saw a huge use of melee weapons in preference to the bayonet in the trenches.

Every person with any expertise has explained that wanting to mount a bayonet on a rifle and use it for HD is considered to be a poor choice for legal and practical reasons.

Why do you cling to this idea as being practical instead of accepting that your question generated an interesting discussion with broad analysis of the point by several people with real practical knowledge and the conclusion is that there's no point to doing this?

 

[Sobel]

We're coming off the rails here, topic-wise, but that's not a very well considered position. Some of the "hardest" (at least, in the way you mean it) guys I've known, the guys who I stood by to support while they did snatch-and-grabs in the heart of a foreign country, were also some of the most reliant on technology, like the three different kinds of thermal scopes we had in our tower.

A close study of PTSD shows that it is rarely the violence we perform that causes the condition- it's the imminent threat of our own deaths.

Study up on the subject, and then, we can debate it at leisure. I'm not going to have a battle of wits with an unarmed foe.

John

Threat of death. Then barbarians + Romans +med. knights +napoleonic soldiers are all more brave than those now. They have no apcs to ride in , they have no kevlar nor tanks. They had armour tho they knew they would most likely die. Not saying the soldiers of today are weak just saying they don't have what it takes to do what those in the past could. Tho it seems if those of the past learned how to use modern weapons they would be pretty adept.

 

[Sam1911]

Also is this not the coolest looking thing in the world?

The coolest looking thing? Well, sure, maybe. I don't want the coolest looking thing in the world to defend my life and those of my family. I want the most effective thing. Or whatever is the most effective thing I can get. Or, failing even that, at least a thing that could be expected to be reasonably effective.

Even the web site you linked says:

The below gun is a pretty cool looking modern recreation of an axe gun. The short gun barrel and short axe shaft make both weapons a lot less effective than they could be. ... I suspect that the original axe guns were made more for decoration than for war.

Seems like folks hundreds of years ago had figured out that this was a crummy idea.

 

[JShirley]

Okay, so you have squarely taken this thread from what was merely an ignorant question to pure fantasy. This is the sole warning you'll get before the thread is closed.

Threat of death. Then barbarians + Romans +med. knights +napoleonic soldiers are all more brave than those now. They have no apcs to ride in , they have no kevlar nor tanks. They had armour tho they knew they would most likely die. Not saying the soldiers of today are weak just saying they don't have what it takes to do what those in the past could. Tho it seems if those of the past learned how to use modern weapons they would be pretty adept.

Again, do at least a minor bit of study before you start spouting off pure nonsense. Study the combat load of the modern US infantryman. Contrast it with the weight carried by the Roman legions. And when you have a little bit of a clue, we can talk about it. Just not here.

 

[Sam1911]

pkm machine gun is large and unwieldy tho not the most practical of tools it would get the job done.

You really haven't ever done any practical drills or training, have you? If you had, you'd not say things like this.

Trying to defend your home against a violent intruder with a belt-fed machine gun is a recipe for failure, on many levels. You'd be totally outmatched by a guy with a revolver, who knew what he was doing.

Why do you cling to this idea as being practical instead of accepting that your question generated an interesting discussion with broad analysis of the point by several people with real practical knowledge and the conclusion is that there's no point to doing this?

Indeed. Why not say, "Thank you, I appreciate your insights and have a better understanding of the issue now?" Why does it have to be "The earth IS flat because I say so, no matter how many times we've sailed around it?"

 

[BullfrogKen]

Threat of death. Then barbarians + Romans +med. knights +napoleonic soldiers are all more brave than those now. They have no apcs to ride in , they have no kevlar nor tanks. They had armour tho they knew they would most likely die. Not saying the soldiers of today are weak just saying they don't have what it takes to do what those in the past could.

Really? Really.



Nevermind. I seem to have mistaken you for an adult. My bad.

 

[Jaymo]

I agree with the mod who likes sabers. I've always liked sabers and cutlasses.
They were meant for up close use, in an age before the Mossberg 590 with 4 rounds extra in the Speedfeed stock and 6 more in the Sidesaddle plus a few more in cartridge loops on the sling.

The few bayonets I own are merely for historical accuracy. The Enfield bayonets came with the Enfields when I bought them.
The Swede bayonet was purchased to correct the omission of one when I bought the M38.
The M7 was bought because the 590 takes one. Put it on one time just to look at. Took it off, put it up, forgot where I put it.
The Swiss bayonet was bought because the local AN store had it for half the going price, and it looks cool, and I collect knives.
The AK bayonets were because they look cool, I collect knives, and the price was too cheap to pass up.
I like cutlery of all types. Knives, swords, spears, lances, axes, razors, etc.
Would I really use a bayo? Realistically, only if all better options were exhausted.
I think 24 rounds of 12 gauge buckshot will protect my family from a home invasion just fine.

I pray I NEVER have to find out.

The majority of my hunting is small game, and they don't let me within bayonet drill range. Besides, it would ruin a lot of meat.
A .22 Benjamin Marauder precharged pneumatic takes rabbits and squirrels quietly and effectively, not to mention cheaply.

The vast majority of us will never be in a situation where we'll need to find out.
I like it just fine that way.

 

[Sam1911]

After reviewing the last half of this thread, it looks to me as though we're heading for a cliff. There is more, and plenty more, than enough information already presented to answer the original question. Rehashing the points already established isn't likely to bring further enlightenment, and only unpleasantness seems likely to come from further debate.

To the OP, several members have offered great insights. Contact them via PM if you really seek a better understanding. I can vouch for many of them personally. They are extremely knowledgeable and will be better instructors/advisor's than you'd ever hope to meet.