Doug M.
Member
The initial work Tueller did was vital, but yes, subsequent research has shown that the actual threat distance for contact weapons is a lot farther than 21 feet.
Knife vs Gun - 21 Foot Rule
- Thread starter 357-RevolverGuy
- Start date
When I was talking to Dennis during a break in a class once, he mentioned that if he were going to do it over, he'd have lengthened the reactionary gap distance to at least 30 feet.
I don't want to step on anybody's toes, but mixing the martial arts - particularly those which include blade use - with the 'modern' martial art of handgun use, can sometimes make it seem as though we may be talking a different language, or at least at cross purpose. 
Not hard to find some little nuggets that have survived down the years.
Things like how an untrained person, picking up a knife and being determined to hurt someone with it, can potentially "erase" at least the first 5 years of a martial arts practitioner's training.
Or, how the man with a sword, within lunging sword's reach, is faster and can always 'beat' a man with a gun.
Lots of old & modern sayings have entered our culture.
The thing is, not everyone is trained and experienced in the same manner, using the same blades or guns, let alone in the same situational context and circumstances. Lots of leeway and wiggle room.
I've been involved in some martial arts since '71. I've been interested in handguns and shooting since I was a youngster.
I didn't get serious about applying my arts training to handguns until I'd been working as a LE firearms instructor for a few years (starting in '90, where I had the run of a closed LE range to let me work on things).
I've known my fair share of folks of criminal inclination, and a lot of state prison experience, who were willing to discuss their experiences using shanks, as well as the younger guys who hadn't spent as much (or any) state prison time, but could buy/obtain much better commercially made blades.
One thing I quickly learned from observing and listening to all these guys? They typically went for what they considered to be the critical spots on their intended victim's anatomy. Not the hands or arms. The body. Didn't care if it was in front or back.
Puncture wounds to sensitive spots, and/or (depending on the "blade" available to them) long, wide, deep & continuous slashing attacks. Might not hurt right away, but it would weaken or disable while they continued to try and get at something critical. Neck/face wounding wasn't unknown, but it was interesting how many went for the COM spots.
I remember one guy (now doing life) carefully explaining how he favored, due to his smaller size and strength, ripping/slicing a long "zipper" in the front of someone. Only carried a small knife, which could be discarded. He wasn't exactly a young man when I met him, and he was given a bit of a wide berth by some larger guys in his world.
Very few of the long time bad guys wanted a "straight up, face-to-face" fight. They preferred their victim not realize he'd been stabbed (cut, sliced, shanked, whatever) until the pain hit several seconds later, or he discovered he was pulsing or sheeting blood, or he fell over dying.
Not uncommon for some folks who are seriously cut, stabbed, etc to describe that they felt nothing at the time they suffered their injury, or that they thought they'd been punched (shoved, etc), only to discover they'd been cut or stabbed.
Box cutters? Nasty.
Screw drivers? Deep and perforating.
Machetes? Use your imagination.
Then, imagine the surprise of a young cop (I was training at the time), when a quick pat-down of a semi-comatose drunk, lying in the street, revealed that he was carrying TWO fixed blade knives with 8-10" blades stuffed down one pant leg.
The number of large blades that are missed during pat searches of arrestees, and which aren't found until they're being booked in a local jail, would probably be mind boggling to a lot of folks. How do cops miss these things? Sloppy police work. Negligence. Complacency. Distraction. Assumption based upon "experience". Pick a reason that sounds good to you.
It's not the size of the knife in the fight, but the size of the fight in the knife wielder (another twist on a hoary saying) that can make for a potentially disabling, or lethal, "surprise".
Just because the intended victim may be armed with a handgun, doesn't automatically mean the blade wielder is at a disadvantage.
Situational context, and yes, awareness ... and training, experience, mindset, etc, etc.
OODA doesn't make you better. Not by itself. It gives you a method to hopefully gain an advantage in a situation, presuming you have the training, experience and mindset to be able to recognize when it's able to be put to work in your favor, and the ability to do something with it.
In closing, it's often been opined that the best way to learn to defend against a knife, is to learn how to use a knife. Think that's going to be accomplished in the short 8-16 hour training class? Good luck. Awareness and some respect for the damage that can be done using one, perhaps.
Just some rambling thoughts. Stay safe folks.
Not hard to find some little nuggets that have survived down the years.
Things like how an untrained person, picking up a knife and being determined to hurt someone with it, can potentially "erase" at least the first 5 years of a martial arts practitioner's training.
Or, how the man with a sword, within lunging sword's reach, is faster and can always 'beat' a man with a gun.
Lots of old & modern sayings have entered our culture.
The thing is, not everyone is trained and experienced in the same manner, using the same blades or guns, let alone in the same situational context and circumstances. Lots of leeway and wiggle room.
I've been involved in some martial arts since '71. I've been interested in handguns and shooting since I was a youngster.
I didn't get serious about applying my arts training to handguns until I'd been working as a LE firearms instructor for a few years (starting in '90, where I had the run of a closed LE range to let me work on things).
I've known my fair share of folks of criminal inclination, and a lot of state prison experience, who were willing to discuss their experiences using shanks, as well as the younger guys who hadn't spent as much (or any) state prison time, but could buy/obtain much better commercially made blades.
One thing I quickly learned from observing and listening to all these guys? They typically went for what they considered to be the critical spots on their intended victim's anatomy. Not the hands or arms. The body. Didn't care if it was in front or back.
Puncture wounds to sensitive spots, and/or (depending on the "blade" available to them) long, wide, deep & continuous slashing attacks. Might not hurt right away, but it would weaken or disable while they continued to try and get at something critical. Neck/face wounding wasn't unknown, but it was interesting how many went for the COM spots.
I remember one guy (now doing life) carefully explaining how he favored, due to his smaller size and strength, ripping/slicing a long "zipper" in the front of someone. Only carried a small knife, which could be discarded. He wasn't exactly a young man when I met him, and he was given a bit of a wide berth by some larger guys in his world.
Very few of the long time bad guys wanted a "straight up, face-to-face" fight. They preferred their victim not realize he'd been stabbed (cut, sliced, shanked, whatever) until the pain hit several seconds later, or he discovered he was pulsing or sheeting blood, or he fell over dying.
Not uncommon for some folks who are seriously cut, stabbed, etc to describe that they felt nothing at the time they suffered their injury, or that they thought they'd been punched (shoved, etc), only to discover they'd been cut or stabbed.
Box cutters? Nasty.
Screw drivers? Deep and perforating.
Machetes? Use your imagination.
Then, imagine the surprise of a young cop (I was training at the time), when a quick pat-down of a semi-comatose drunk, lying in the street, revealed that he was carrying TWO fixed blade knives with 8-10" blades stuffed down one pant leg.
The number of large blades that are missed during pat searches of arrestees, and which aren't found until they're being booked in a local jail, would probably be mind boggling to a lot of folks. How do cops miss these things? Sloppy police work. Negligence. Complacency. Distraction. Assumption based upon "experience". Pick a reason that sounds good to you.
It's not the size of the knife in the fight, but the size of the fight in the knife wielder (another twist on a hoary saying) that can make for a potentially disabling, or lethal, "surprise".
Just because the intended victim may be armed with a handgun, doesn't automatically mean the blade wielder is at a disadvantage.
Situational context, and yes, awareness ... and training, experience, mindset, etc, etc.
OODA doesn't make you better. Not by itself. It gives you a method to hopefully gain an advantage in a situation, presuming you have the training, experience and mindset to be able to recognize when it's able to be put to work in your favor, and the ability to do something with it.
In closing, it's often been opined that the best way to learn to defend against a knife, is to learn how to use a knife. Think that's going to be accomplished in the short 8-16 hour training class? Good luck. Awareness and some respect for the damage that can be done using one, perhaps.
Just some rambling thoughts. Stay safe folks.
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2005
- Messages
- 8,017
- Reaction score
- 7,093
The Tueller Drill and what Tueller said about it, and how it should be applied, and how the distance may vary to account for different individuals and circumstances is misunderstood, misquoted, misstated, and just generally gotten wrong about as often as two other things in self-defense and pistol matters.
The first example of such misunderstandings and misstatements is the claim or explanation that a "Level 2" holster has two retention devices, while a "Level 3" has three, or a "Level 1" has one, etc. It is just not correct. Never has been, and although widely misstated these days, is not at all what the originator, Bill Rogers, had in mind when he created the level systems for holster retention.
Another such often misstated item in firearms training is that Jeff Cooper taught only shooting with the sights, and that the "Weaver Stance," is a "bladed" stance which turns the shooter almost sideways to the target. Again, not at all true on either account. Cooper greatly enjoyed "hip shooting," or as he called it "unsighted fire" (he believed the term "instinctive" was not accurate as an instinct is something with which you are born, not something learned by repetition, as is the case with unsighted fire). While Cooper taught use of the sights, "when you can," he clearly recognized that in certain circumstances, it would not be called for, or it would not be available. As to Weaver, unless you have seen it done by Cooper in person, rather than in a photo (he refused to point the pistol at the camera man), it might appear that Weaver is bladed. However, Weaver, properly taken, puts the shooter more or less square with the target, the shooting side foot dropped back no more than half-a-step (think football or boxing "ready" stance).
Sorry for going on a tangent, but often the "things people say" get shortened, changed or erroneously quoted over the years, often by well-meaning people, leading others, who are apparently unable to research things beyond what they heard at the "LGS," from the "range officer," or on a forum, to believe things that just are not correct.
Tueller must roll his eyes at all of the folks who think they know what he said and repeat it erroneously.
Does anyone beside me remember the film "Surviving Edged Weapons" which is what we were shown back in the dark ages?
The first example of such misunderstandings and misstatements is the claim or explanation that a "Level 2" holster has two retention devices, while a "Level 3" has three, or a "Level 1" has one, etc. It is just not correct. Never has been, and although widely misstated these days, is not at all what the originator, Bill Rogers, had in mind when he created the level systems for holster retention.
Another such often misstated item in firearms training is that Jeff Cooper taught only shooting with the sights, and that the "Weaver Stance," is a "bladed" stance which turns the shooter almost sideways to the target. Again, not at all true on either account. Cooper greatly enjoyed "hip shooting," or as he called it "unsighted fire" (he believed the term "instinctive" was not accurate as an instinct is something with which you are born, not something learned by repetition, as is the case with unsighted fire). While Cooper taught use of the sights, "when you can," he clearly recognized that in certain circumstances, it would not be called for, or it would not be available. As to Weaver, unless you have seen it done by Cooper in person, rather than in a photo (he refused to point the pistol at the camera man), it might appear that Weaver is bladed. However, Weaver, properly taken, puts the shooter more or less square with the target, the shooting side foot dropped back no more than half-a-step (think football or boxing "ready" stance).
Sorry for going on a tangent, but often the "things people say" get shortened, changed or erroneously quoted over the years, often by well-meaning people, leading others, who are apparently unable to research things beyond what they heard at the "LGS," from the "range officer," or on a forum, to believe things that just are not correct.
Tueller must roll his eyes at all of the folks who think they know what he said and repeat it erroneously.
Does anyone beside me remember the film "Surviving Edged Weapons" which is what we were shown back in the dark ages?
Last edited:
Well, if we're going to start making a list of things that are often misquoted or misunderstood regarding firearms, equipment and use-of-force laws, we're going to use a LOT of the forum's bandwidth. 
Even if we only limited it to the last couple of decades, not all the way back to our youth, or the 'dark ages', as you so charitably phrased it.
Even if we only limited it to the last couple of decades, not all the way back to our youth, or the 'dark ages', as you so charitably phrased it.
David LaPell
Member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2008
- Messages
- 5,541
- Reaction score
- 6,781
I once saw what one inmate did to another with nothing more than a plastic jail issue fork. The first inmate said something to make the other mad while they were watching TV in a row of hard plastic chairs. The other inmate beside him took his fork, holding it down on the large end so that only about a half inch of the tines were showing and he went to town almost taking out the other guy's eye, in the time it took to even get to him the first inmate had been stabbed about 15-20 times, too fast to count. If he had done that to his throat, well, it would have been over. I have always had a healthy respect for edged weapons, I have seen what a good one can do before, and the Tueller drill should be standard fare for not only every LEO but anyone who carries a handgun for defense.
David LaPell
Member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2008
- Messages
- 5,541
- Reaction score
- 6,781
I don't want to step on anybody's toes, but mixing the martial arts - particularly those which include blade use - with the 'modern' martial art of handgun use, can sometimes make it seem as though we may be talking a different language, or at least at cross purpose.
Not hard to find some little nuggets that have survived down the years.
Things like how an untrained person, picking up a knife and being determined to hurt someone with it, can potentially "erase" at least the first 5 years of a martial arts practitioner's training.
Or, how the man with a sword, within lunging sword's reach, is faster and can always 'beat' a man with a gun.
Lots of old & modern sayings have entered our culture.
The thing is, not everyone is trained and experienced in the same manner, using the same blades or guns, let alone in the same situational context and circumstances. Lots of leeway and wiggle room.
I've been involved in some martial arts since '71. I've been interested in handguns and shooting since I was a youngster.
I didn't get serious about applying my arts training to handguns until I'd been working as a LE firearms instructor for a few years (starting in '90, where I had the run of a closed LE range to let me work on things).
I've known my fair share of folks of criminal inclination, and a lot of state prison experience, who were willing to discuss their experiences using shanks, as well as the younger guys who hadn't spent as much (or any) state prison time, but could buy/obtain much better commercially made blades.
One thing I quickly learned from observing and listening to all these guys? They typically went for what they considered to be the critical spots on their intended victim's anatomy. Not the hands or arms. The body. Didn't care if it was in front or back.
Puncture wounds to sensitive spots, and/or (depending on the "blade" available to them) long, wide, deep & continuous slashing attacks. Might not hurt right away, but it would weaken or disable while they continued to try and get at something critical. Neck/face wounding wasn't unknown, but it was interesting how many went for the COM spots.
I remember one guy (now doing life) carefully explaining how he favored, due to his smaller size and strength, ripping/slicing a long "zipper" in the front of someone. Only carried a small knife, which could be discarded. He wasn't exactly a young man when I met him, and he was given a bit of a wide berth by some larger guys in his world.
Very few of the long time bad guys wanted a "straight up, face-to-face" fight. They preferred their victim not realize he'd been stabbed (cut, sliced, shanked, whatever) until the pain hit several seconds later, or he discovered he was pulsing or sheeting blood, or he fell over dying.
Not uncommon for some folks who are seriously cut, stabbed, etc to describe that they felt nothing at the time they suffered their injury, or that they thought they'd been punched (shoved, etc), only to discover they'd been cut or stabbed.
Box cutters? Nasty.
Screw drivers? Deep and perforating.
Machetes? Use your imagination.
Then, imagine the surprise of a young cop (I was training at the time), when a quick pat-down of a semi-comatose drunk, lying in the street, revealed that he was carrying TWO fixed blade knives with 8-10" blades stuffed down one pant leg.
The number of large blades that are missed during pat searches of arrestees, and which aren't found until they're being booked in a local jail, would probably be mind boggling to a lot of folks. How do cops miss these things? Sloppy police work. Negligence. Complacency. Distraction. Assumption based upon "experience". Pick a reason that sounds good to you.
It's not the size of the knife in the fight, but the size of the fight in the knife wielder (another twist on a hoary saying) that can make for a potentially disabling, or lethal, "surprise".
Just because the intended victim may be armed with a handgun, doesn't automatically mean the blade wielder is at a disadvantage.
Situational context, and yes, awareness ... and training, experience, mindset, etc, etc.
OODA doesn't make you better. Not by itself. It gives you a method to hopefully gain an advantage in a situation, presuming you have the training, experience and mindset to be able to recognize when it's able to be put to work in your favor, and the ability to do something with it.
In closing, it's often been opined that the best way to learn to defend against a knife, is to learn how to use a knife. Think that's going to be accomplished in the short 8-16 hour training class? Good luck. Awareness and some respect for the damage that can be done using one, perhaps.
Just some rambling thoughts. Stay safe folks.
My first week on the job in our local jail small though it was, was an eye opener. I was touring the rec yard with my training officer and found a tooth brush sharpened to a point. We figured it was left there so the user could get it and use it there on either one of us or another inmate in the yard without having to worry about getting searched inside on the way in. I once found a piece of shower tile that was so sharp on two sides it could have been used as a scalpel. It was about the size of an arrowhead and was in plain sight and by the inmate's own admission was missed by other officers because they looked where it was but didn't quite focus enough (hidden in plain sight). This guy was in jail and had just been sentenced for stabbing his girlfriend and her daughter dozens of times, he was facing life. I have seen more than my share of fights in jail and luckily only a couple of times were weapons involved, all home made. I have seen people come in from various agencies after being arrested and I have pulled off of them keys and even a box cutter before among other things. Improvised weapons are amazing in their simplicity and their brutality.
YogiBear
Absent Comrade
Aloha,
Many years ago, the Wife and I were invited to a class on folding knives.
At the end of class, we were allowed to cut a piece of beef wrapped around
a 2 x 4 and tightly wrapped with a double layer of jeans material(2 cut off legs).
We were amazed at how a $100 Benchmade knife was able to slice thru the layers of denim and meat almost to the wood.
Having only cut steaks at dinners, this was a wake up call about knives.
Sad when people who are Not aware of edged weapons say the cop should not have shot (and killed) the BG armed "with a knife".
Those of you in the LE field KNOW the dangers.
The Vast majority of people just don't get it.
Many years ago, the Wife and I were invited to a class on folding knives.
At the end of class, we were allowed to cut a piece of beef wrapped around
a 2 x 4 and tightly wrapped with a double layer of jeans material(2 cut off legs).
We were amazed at how a $100 Benchmade knife was able to slice thru the layers of denim and meat almost to the wood.
Having only cut steaks at dinners, this was a wake up call about knives.
Sad when people who are Not aware of edged weapons say the cop should not have shot (and killed) the BG armed "with a knife".
Those of you in the LE field KNOW the dangers.
The Vast majority of people just don't get it.
Personally, I think the "21 foot rule" wasn't "invented" to help people with guns understand how to take on people with knives, but rather as a "pre established" defense in court for cops who shot people who "only" had knives. "Officer, what training did you have in stopping the threat posed by a person with a knife...." And on from there with the training documentation to back up the testimony.
Similar threads
