Knife vs Gun - 21 Foot Rule

Register to hide this ad
If at all possible, retreat while drawing to maintain distance in that situation. Maybe even practice firing while intentionally falling down backwards? This would almost certainly be a crazed maniac to charge like that so anything goes.
 
Lynn Thompson, of Cold Steel, wrote at length about this topic in one of the gun mags some years ago. A knife in a gunfight can in fact come out the winner. Knife in hand, you can close and disembowel someone before they can get their weapon out of the holster.Even Jeff Cooper, writing about the sad demise of Napoleon IV, opined that up close a sword or mace lost nothing on a pistol, and in fact had the advantage since it would never jam or need a reload.
 
i had an interesting conversation with a gent who conducted training for Sig Sauer. He traveled to police departments around the country conducting firearms training.He told me that the average concealed carry person would never get their firearm into play if set upon by someone seriously intent on doing them bodily harm. His point had more to do with training and awareness than anything else, meaning that the reflex actions would not be well enough conditioned to allow a timely response.
 
Please do a search in this forum for previous discussions of the so called "Tueller Rule". Dennis Tueller and I discussed this at length several times. Everyone of us with consideration of our ability, our method of carry and our handgun has their own Tueller distance and we need to determine and document what it is on our own. I won't re-write all that I have previously written, it is available by a search.
 
What about someone who can draw and fire 5 shots in less then 3/5 of a second with all five shots in the Ace of Spades at 7 yds?
It's been done several times.....

If you know to draw your gun and are aware of the threat before he gets anywhere near you, you'd probably be just fine.
I think the argument is 21ft is a long distance and the idea or attitude of "I'll shoot him dead before he can get within reach of me" is just not realistic.

A lot of timed shooting competitions are also done with specialty guns, specialty holsters that are easily accessible and designed for speed draws. Your average concealed IWB pistol in a leather holster covered up by a shirt and obstructed by your gut is going to be slower on the draw.
 
If you know to draw your gun and are aware of the threat before he gets anywhere near you, you'd probably be just fine.
I think the argument is 21ft is a long distance and the idea or attitude of "I'll shoot him dead before he can get within reach of me" is just not realistic.

A lot of timed shooting competitions are also done with specialty guns, specialty holsters that are easily accessible and designed for speed draws. Your average concealed IWB pistol in a leather holster covered up by a shirt and obstructed by your gut is going to be slower on the draw.

Agreed. The concept is really to demonstrate that you're really not safe just because there appears to be a fairly large distance between you and someone armed with a knife(or club). And let us not forget that most assailants won't announce their intentions from across the room, street or anywhere near 21 feet. Most knife attacks are really assassination attempts where the attacker will try to ambush you at close-quarters while you are off-guard, so knowing proper movement integrated with unarmed skills are vital to access your firearm.
 
Not that there is necessarily a good way, but getting cut up or hacked up with an edged weapon would be a lousy way to depart this world.
 
There is no good way to die violently, unless you mean so quickly you don't really feel it.

When I teach concealed carry courses I try to remember to remind people of situational awareness. There is no time in almost any armed confrontation, especially when the opponent has his weapon in hand, be it knife or gun, if your weapon is holstered.

The 21 foot rule has been discussed over and over so many times it surprises me that it is not as widely known as I'd like to think.

As a very secondary note, when I started reading this thread and saw there was a video I said to myself, "Self, SOMEONE is going to paost the Raylan Givens/Justified video with the idiot who falls into the hole."

Well done, Rogue Wizard!
 
Over the years of having been a LE firearms instructor, I've often cringed when someone expounded on the Tueller Drill as being the 21 Foot Rule.

Having listened to Dennis Tueller explain it to a roomful of armorers a couple of times ... for probably his umpty-umpth time ... I feel for him having to repeatedly and carefully explain and clarify what was involved in him originally considering the training question of "How close is too close?"

The whole thing seemed to have rapidly gone beyond his control back then, and now it's virtually taken on a life of its own.

When doing LE training, and the occasional private citizen/CCW classes, I've always tried to emphasize the importance of understanding awareness, reaction times, distances, equipment used, physical environmental conditions (lightning conditions, obstacles to movement of both attacker and defender, adverse weather affecting mobility, vision & hearing) and the influence of distracting, or other threatening, factors.

Lots of things can affect how distance can work against, or for, us ... and it's not quite as simple as using a yardstick as a frame of reference. ;)
 
Last edited:
In truth, the sword, knife, or spear is far more dangerous than any handgun in a close in fight. Far quicker, far more damaging, and far more accurate in a real fight. The ONLY advantage the handgun, or for the most part any firearm, has is distance. That's it. It is inferior in every way to the melee weapon save for the fact it can hit things at a distance.

The flintlock only became the standard weapon of the infantry when the bayonet was invented and implemented, turning a musket into a spear. Contrary to what most people think, the vast majority of musket fighting was done hand to hand, bayonet to bayonet, breaking skulls with musket butts. Officers still carried swords, and used them to great effect in combat. While some who believe certain myths about warfare at the time, and those who have been around the era of modern fast shooting firearms retroactively believe, that "colored uniforms and standing in lines iz stoopid", such lines and formations were more effective than individuals sniping off men by themselves, as the true battle was eventually violent close up combat, not trading shots with the enemy.

Only when rifling became common to average weapons instead of specialty rifles, and the advent of the cartridge over the muzzleloader, was the effect of firepower to end the era of hand to hand combat as the means of fighting war. Only when a very fast rate of high accuracy long range fire could be produced, was the era of the bayonet's supremacy on the battlefield ended. Even then, go ahead and ask some Korean War vets about their fighting, and they might tell you that hand to hand didn't quite come to an end in 1914.

A great deal of the gun's supremacy over the melee weapon is real, in the fact that I can shoot a man with a knife at 300 yards with a .30-06 without much trouble, hopefully, before he can get even nearly close to me. The other part is heavily myth, much of it based on the concept that it is the weapon, not the man, who fights, and who wins. The man makes the weapon; the weapon does not make the man. Also is the arrogance and swagger of the man who believes that his gun makes him supreme, as well as the man who wants to believe that carrying a gun makes him immune to the knife or the fist, gives him an insurmountable advantage.

Many people are unaware. But there are also those too, who, mouth breathing and slack jawed, will not accept the fact that a gun can possibly lose to any knife or fist. The pistol is not a magic guardian against evil, or some sort of talisman, it is a weapon. And you have to win the fight.
 
Drawing and firing and hitting your intended target when that target is a stationary object that is not trying to hurt you is one thing. But when you start out in second place because the target starts the action and has the ability and tools to seriously hurt you is quite another situation. It is almost impossible to start out in second place and get ahead of the action.

The grizzled old Sarge who taught me defensive tactics showed us three ways to defend against someone who has a knife in his hand and is advancing to hurt you with it. After several days of repetitive training in these methods, he stopped the class and explained that he was required to teach those methods to us. He then stated that the only possible safe way to maybe avoid being cut or stabbed if you have to draw when you see the knife is to take three steps backward while you are drawing and aiming at the guy and blow him away from the knife! And he further stated that doing so is no guarantee of avoiding getting cut. If your reaction time (recognizing the threat and taking action) is in any way delayed, you are likely gonna get cut. The guy may even be shot and die in the action, but you can also be stabbed and die.

Personally, I would rather face someone with a firearm than someone with a knife any time.
 
In truth, the sword, knife, or spear is far more dangerous than any handgun in a close in fight. Far quicker, far more damaging, and far more accurate in a real fight. The ONLY advantage the handgun, or for the most part any firearm, has is distance. That's it. It is inferior in every way to the melee weapon save for the fact it can hit things at a distance.

Simply not true in my opinion. I've spent 30 studying the blade arts and only a fraction of that time extensively studying the finer points of using the handgun in close quarters, but give me the handgun anytime, at any distance, in any situation. The issue is one of underestimating and failing to understand the dynamics of the knife as a weapon. Now there could be specific contact/CQ scenarios where mobility is limited in which I would rather have to defend against a gun vs a blade if I were unarmed, but that's about it. For my own weapon, I'd always chose a handgun.
 
Back
Top