Was just reading up on an interesting old police/FBI document called the Tuller Drill.
From Wikipedia:
The Tueller Drill is a self-defense training exercise to prepare against a short-range knife attack when armed only with a holstered handgun.
One would think that a gun beats a knife every time. With superior weaponry, the fight should be easily won. But Sergeant Dennis Tueller, of the Salt Lake City, Utah Police Department, showed that it was not that simple.
A common test of handgun skill was to start with one’s hands at shoulder level with a holstered gun and place two shots on a target 7 yards away within 1.5 seconds. Typically, those trained with handguns can complete the drill in 1.3–1.4 seconds, although some have managed the task in less than one second.
Sgt. Tueller wondered how quickly an attacker with a knife could cover those same 21 feet. So he measured as volunteers raced to stab the target. He determined that it could be done in 1.5 seconds. These results were first published as an article in S.W.A.T. Magazine in 1983 and in a police training video by the same title, “How Close is Too Close?”[1]
A defender with a gun has a dilemma. If he shoots too early, he risks being charged with murder. If he waits until the attacker is definitely within striking range so there is no question about motives, he risks injury and even death. The Tueller experiments quantified a “danger zone” where an attacker presented a clear threat[2].
The Tueller Drill combines both parts of the original experiments by Sgt. Tueller. There are several ways it can be conducted[3]:
1. The “attacker” and shooter are positioned back-to-back. At the signal, the “attacker” sprints away from the shooter, and the shooter unholsters his gun and shoots at the target 21 feet in front of him. The “attacker” stops as soon as the shot is fired. The shooter is successful only if his shot is good and if the runner did not cover 21 feet.
2. A more stressful arrangement is to have the “attacker” begin 21 feet behind the shooter and run towards the shooter. The shooter is successful only if he was able take a good shot before he is tapped on the back by the “attacker”.
3. If the “shooter” is armed with only a training replica gun, such as an ASP Red Gun[4], a full-contact drill may be done with the “attacker” running towards the “shooter”. In this variation, the “shooter” should practice side-stepping the attacker while he is drawing the gun.
It becomes apparent that unless one is highly trained (think SWAT-level-of-training) or does a lot of competition shooting, odds are at 21 feet, you're going to get cut.
The only answer? Situational awareness. I've come to the conclusion that if you want to take personal defense seriously (as discussed in the recent Concealed Carry on Campus thread) you have to be on your toes enough to identify potential threats and take evasive or defensive action (such as putting distance/objects between you and potential threats, or going another direction) before they get that close.
Additionally, in an event like described above, you must begin moving away from the threat as quickly as possible, which very well may mean "jogging backwards" while drawing to create distance and give you as much time as possible.
Interesting reading. I think this article and video (or a similar, maybe better one) should be required homework to get a CCW permit.
Sorry for the rant, but this stuff really interests me.
Owning a gun and considering yourself armed is like owning a piano and considering yourself a musician.
It's no good without lots of training.
Peace,
Pete Zaria. - your forum gun nut
Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 2:21 am
by MrCrowley
Thanks for the read, definetly interesting.
I remember seeing this NZSAS program on TV here, behind the scenes of the new recruits and they ran a similar drill, they just draw and holster their weapon at a target for hours at a time every day with gas masks on.
You can see a very short clip of it here, around 20seconds.
And the NZSAS are supposed to be second to none, so aside from a few American and British services, this is as good as it gets.
jackssmirkingrevenge wrote:You could always compromise
No offense, but you have fun with your .22 franken-knife
I actually know a guy that was shot 11 times in the chest with a .22 and was able to drive himself to the hospital. Not an effective stopping tool unless it can be very precisely aimed, and I don't think the above knife even has sights, does it?
Such a device has an awesome "cool factor" and might even intimidate a bad guy, but I'd rather have my "anti-carjacking tool". It lives in the door pouch of my car:
Peace,
Pete Zaria.
Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 2:49 am
by MrCrowley
Ha, is that legal? The brass knuckles with bonus knife...
Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 2:51 am
by jackssmirkingrevenge
There are also people who have been shot once with a 22LR and died instantly, it's all about shot placement. I don't think this type of weapon is meant to be used at anything beyond a few feet, so aiming isn't really an issue.
How about the Russian NRS-2, single shot but bigger calibre, more muzzle energy and it fires a "closed circuit" round meaning it's completely silent
Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 4:19 am
by Novacastrian
Give me a knife and we will both die...
EDIT: That is if he did not just shoot me in the Head, Heart,Kneecaps or spine.
Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 5:03 am
by feral_patriot
A .22 short will do the trick, nicely. Take out half the powder. One shot, right behind the ear. Tiny little semi-auto of Italian descent...
A knife is handy, too, though for those properly trained or those high enough that they act like "berserkers".
Hey, Pete, wouldn't it be funny if that knife/.22 combo went off in a guy's hand while stabbing at somebody! ROFLMAO!
Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 5:04 am
by Ragnarok
jackssmirkingrevenge wrote:You could always compromise
That seems almost like it was designed by the Janitor off Scrubs: Knife-wrench Drill-fork
Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 5:59 am
by jackssmirkingrevenge
wouldn't it be funny if that knife/.22 combo went off in a guy's hand while stabbing at somebody!
I think that's the general idea.
A .22 short will do the trick, nicely. Take out half the powder. One shot, right behind the ear. Tiny little semi-auto of Italian descent...
This is a trick used by Mossad Kidon teams in order to be silent without using a silencer, an example of this was dramatised in the film "Munich":
[youtube][/youtube]
That seems almost like it was designed by the Janitor off Scrubs
He always comes up with the best stuff but it's not as bad as the Drilldo<sup>TM</sup>
If you're going to fire projectiles at your enemy, use a cartridge loaded weapon. If you have a knife, it makes no sense to throw it away from you unless you have a whole lot of them on you, V for Vendetta style It's dramatic enough in movies but in practice, it's best to hold on to your blade.
Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 8:07 am
by Jared Haehnel
I agree with Jack your stupid to throw your knife away. Unless you've been practicing a long time...
A lot of people consider a .380 a minimum for concealed carry. The .22lr and .25 auto both suffer from very low impact energy. Thus penetration a lethality suffer. Even the .380 has a lot to be desired. However all three rounds are deadly if the shot placement is correct.
Most concealed pistol are rated to be accurate with in 7 yards but in a high stress situation I would be surprised if the shooter him/her self was that accurate. I imagine the officers that were tested in the above test were using full size pistols not a pocket pistol.
Heres another important consideration. In the advent of an attack. The defender must recognize the threat, identify the targets beyond all reasonable doubt, draw their pistol which is probably in their pockets or strapped to their ankle ( most common for conceal carry), then chamber a round (if theres not one chambered) and fire the aimed shots.
How many people do you know could do all that in 1.5 seconds? Gun verses knife... knife would probably win
Thanks for the post its been a very interesting read
Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 9:51 am
by Ragnarok
Jared Haehnel wrote:How many people do you know could do all that in 1.5 seconds? Gun verses knife... knife would probably win
This is a large disadvantage of firearms - the draw time is a real problem in self defence. Any assailant can see you going for a gun, and no-one (save if they're called John Preston and have guns on spring loaded mechanisms up their sleeves) can draw fast enough to beat the reactions of an already armed assailant.
Those 1.5 seconds the attacker takes have to include your reaction time. It's going to be hard enough for many people just to draw in that time. Add on time to work out what's going on, assess the entire situation, and work out a plan of action... you're probably too late.
Only some skill in martial arts would really be able to stop such an assailant, mostly because of the reduced reaction time (martial arts become instinctive), no draw time - and you'll always have it when you need it (no-one has yet left their martial arts in the safe back home), and you can have it anywhere, nor can it be taken off you to be used against you.
If people are really fussed about self-defence, they should at least do a short introductory course in some martial arts. In many situations, it is easily superior to a gun - and it may come useful in more ways.
The training helps your reaction time in such a situation (even if you are choosing to draw a gun instead), and studies have shown that attackers are less likely to attack people with martial arts training - there's some subtle change in how people trained like that move and react, and that often puts off potential attackers.
I'm not a fan of guns being used for self-defence, but if one were to be combined with a good training in martial arts, I can see few situations where the combination wouldn't be able to win through - only when you start adding several attackers (reasonably rare) would the combination be totally stumped.
