In class, when taught how do defend against a guy with a gun, we use only one hand to control the gun, and another to hit (to stun him), then proceed into a strip of the weapon.
While I believe the strip/disarms of the weapons are effective, I somewhat worry about the control phase of the defense, for example:
Lets say someone is straight in front of you, pointing a gun to your head/chest area, and your in neutral/passive stance (with hands up in a "I give up position"). We're taught to grab the barrel of the gun (left hand to their right, right hand to their left), bring the barrel down, and strike their face a couple of times, stunning him, then strip the weapon.

I've read some articles (on defense against guns) saying when dealing with a gun, you should use two hands to control gun (while using knees, shin scrapes, toe stomps, and other hits to stun him), saying that under stress, you may not have the power, control, or hand-to-eye coordination to use one hand?

While I believe that each method has its strengths and weaknesses, I want to hear other's thoughts on this idea and anything else on weapon disarms in general.:asian:

James.
My opinion is to always go with 2 hands..Since I have no knowledge of Krav Maga techniques I can only speak from experience and you can generate a lot twisting/stripping power using 2 hands..I'm others will have better opinions...

In class, when taught how do defend against a guy with a gun, we use only one hand to control the gun, and another to hit (to stun him), then proceed into a strip of the weapon.
While I believe the strip/disarms of the weapons are effective, I somewhat worry about the control phase of the defense, for example:
Lets say someone is straight in front of you, pointing a gun to your head/chest area, and your in neutral/passive stance (with hands up in a "I give up position"). We're taught to grab the barrel of the gun (left hand to their right, right hand to their left), bring the barrel down, and strike their face a couple of times, stunning him, then strip the weapon.

I've read some articles (on defense against guns) saying when dealing with a gun, you should use two hands to control gun (while using knees, shin scrapes, toe stomps, and other hits to stun him), saying that under stress, you may not have the power, control, or hand-to-eye coordination to use one hand?

While I believe that each method has its strengths and weaknesses, I want to hear other's thoughts on this idea and anything else on weapon disarms in general.:asian:

Speaking on a basic KM level, IMO, I believe that is the idea or assumption that KM goes on....redirect the weapon with one hand, throwing multiple strikes with the other, adding forward pressure, in hopes that this'll stun the attacker enough to get an effective disarm. I don't believe that the strikes are designed to get a KO, but instead to provide a momentary distraction to get the disarm.

Personally, I'm more inclined to go with what Drac stated, and use 2 hands. IMHO, I feel that any time one is faced with a weapon, gaining control should be on the top of the list.

Mike

what you where taught in class is a basic disarm for any type of weapon. But in arnes, the choice target to hit is the arm and not so much the head. The strike is to cause the attacker to release his grip of the weapon. What little I do know of krav maga, which also is in arnes, is that when dealing with guns you don't want to grab the barrel of the gun (and rarely the gun itself) unless there is no other choice. You want to grab the attacker's hand or wrist at first. And above all don't struggle with the gun, because the gun will more than likely go off in a struggle.

IMO, two handed is works better for full control of the gun in situations where others may be in danger because of your actions. Two handed grabs give you the abilty to imobilize the gun (and or hammer mechanism) and the gunman's trigger finger.

what you where taught in class is a basic disarm for any type of weapon. But in arnes, the choice target to hit is the arm and not so much the head. The strike is to cause the attacker to release his grip of the weapon. What little I do know of krav maga, which also is in arnes, is that when dealing with guns you don't want to grab the barrel of the gun (and rarely the gun itself) unless there is no other choice. You want to grab the attacker's hand or wrist at first. And above all don't struggle with the gun, because the gun will more than likely go off in a struggle.

Thats interesting that you say that. All of the KM disarms that I've seen, have the defender grabbing the gun to redirect. Yes, at some point and time, the wrist may be grabbed, but its always in conjunction with the gun as well.

Mike

i realize that what i wrote may seem wierd to some, but it's true. The reason why you don't grab the gun to redirect is because in a stressful real life situation you will jerk on the gun if you grab it, which in turn will more than likely cause the gun to go off. Then bang bang you're dead. It is a matter of being able to do the right thing in a stressful situation.

i realize that what i wrote may seem wierd to some, but it's true. The reason why you don't grab the gun to redirect is because in a stressful real life situation you will jerk on the gun if you grab it, which in turn will more than likely cause the gun to go off. Then bang bang you're dead. It is a matter of being able to do the right thing in a stressful situation.

I wasn't disputing your theory, just stating that in all of the KM disarms that I've been exposed to, a grab was always done to the gun. Of course, putting yourself out of the line of fire is also key, during the initial movement. I'd think though, that no matter what the method of disarming is, there is a chance that the gun will go off.

Mike

I wasn't disputing your theory, just stating that in all of the KM disarms that I've been exposed to, a grab was always done to the gun. Of course, putting yourself out of the line of fire is also key, during the initial movement. I'd think though, that no matter what the method of disarming is, there is a chance that the gun will go off.

Mike


The last set of gun disarms i saw (with simunition) had the 2 hand disarm to the gun first and taken to the out side with no hits to the target...........inside and 1 arm both had the defender getting hit.

i realize that what i wrote may seem wierd to some, but it's true. The reason why you don't grab the gun to redirect is because in a stressful real life situation you will jerk on the gun if you grab it, which in turn will more than likely cause the gun to go off. Then bang bang you're dead. It is a matter of being able to do the right thing in a stressful situation.

I most cases I teach that the gun is never jerked towards oneself, always twisted toward the attacker. Also, that is where the second hand comes in, control the trigger finger.

Samurai69, we did the same experiment, with the same results. I have learned a bunch of one handed defenses and about 80% have you going to the inside of the gun to control the gun and strike. I do not like going to the inside of the gun if i do not have to.

Bobbo, i have seen some guys twho were great with the defenses you mentioned and you need to work with what is most comfortable to you. When it comes to gun dissarms, It is worth some reality training to see if you can really be that fast or effective with any attacks, one or two handed.

Great thread.

It is worth some reality training to see if you can really be that fast or effective with any attacks, one or two handed.Great thread..

That about says it all..Practice ,Pratice ,Pratice. multiple repetitions..What is comfortable for you might not be for the next person.What realy matters is survival..

.

That about says it all..Practice ,Pratice ,Pratice. multiple repetitions..What is comfortable for you might not be for the next person.What realy matters is survival..

Your definately right there, practice, practice and more practice.

Brian R. VanCise
www.instinctiveresponsetraining.com (http://www.instinctiveresponsetraining.com)

I will say that I am very happy with the Krav 1-handed method of dealing with a gun, and with grabing the gun barrel instead of the hand.

Logic might dictate other things; two hands being better then 1, don't grab the weapon grab the hand, etc. But, what is most important isn't a logical arguement based on variables that might not exist as thought in the fight; what is most important is what gets the results.

I am not a Krav player, so I have no vested interest in being a spokesperson; just want to give credit where it is due. Someone in our network is a Krav player and that is where we got the method from; however we did modify it slightly to suit us.

Anyways, the 1 handed method in the manner which Krav does it is a good maneuver, and I prefer it over other two handed methods. It gives you control over the weapon while allowing your to strike the person to change his focus (from trying to shot to trying to protect his eyes and face) at which point it buys you time and opportunity to pull your weapon or attempt a disarm.

Coming from someone who runs The Combat Researchers Guild, where we put many different methods to the test, I can say that I would put the Krav 1 handed method against the gun up against any other at the moment.

Paul

, It is worth some reality training to see if you can really be that fast or effective with any attacks, one or two handed.

Great thread.


I would definately agree with that

airsoft with paint pellets let you know when you get it wrong....

but its always a practice, i am not sure 100% wheter i would be able to effect a good and safe gun defence in a real situation

the only time i was held up with a gun it was a sawn off and i had also had a few drinks too many.........lukily my run-fu was at its best and we legged it........:CTF:

The basic principles need to be considered with any technique you may chose.

Redirect the line of fire
Control the weapon
Counterattack
Disarm

Most KM schools teach this principle, but is also basic common sense. I really like some of the KM material, but also try to work my legs into the equation. There can be a strike (not with the extra hand), but the knee or instep.

Redirect the line of fire - this can be a tricky one if you are a LEO or security. Normally one looks out for numro uno, but is these situations you need to consider those around you. The attacker may still fire the weapon in their direction. So just because you are out of danger does not mean someone is not going to get hurt.

Paul, great input as usual. Hope all is going well with Tulisan!

I would definately agree with that

airsoft with paint pellets let you know when you get it wrong....

but its always a practice, i am not sure 100% wheter i would be able to effect a good and safe gun defence in a real situation

We train the rookie officers with airsoft,a great teaching aid and the sting is a great teacher

lukily my run-fu was at its best and we legged it

I'd a been right with you..

We train the rookie officers with airsoft,a great teaching aid and the sting is a great teacher.

And I am sure they take a few extra shots now and then! :)

We favor a one-handed method of seizing the weapon since a two-handed grab reduces your ability to maneuver your body out of the line of fire. We follow a simple set of guidelines:

1. Create the opportune moment. That is, psychologically distract the opponent by glancing behind him (as if someone is there) or get him to speak to you (a person's reaction time is reduced by as much as 50% when he is speaking, especially if he's giving an order).

2. Get your body out of the line of fire while you....

3. ....acquire control of the weapon and move the muzzle away from you. If at all possible, try to prevent the weapon from discharging.

4. Strike immediately. It needn't be a disabling blow, but should (at the very least) get the scumbag's attention.

5. Maintaining control of the (direction of the) muzzle, kill him.

And as has been said before, PRACTICE, PRACTICE, PRACTICE. And do it regularly. If you back off for a couple of months, your timing gets rusty...

The basic principles need to be considered with any technique you may chose.

Redirect the line of fire
Control the weapon
Counterattack
Disarm




These are good points to go by, and an informative post. :)


Paul, great input as usual. Hope all is going well with Tulisan!

Things are going pretty good, thanks! :) Things look good on your good looking websites too. I'll hopefully get around to adding more to mine soon (got to get dreamweaver to make my life easier, and consult with Bob, the webmaster supreme.) ;)

Paul

We favor a one-handed method of seizing the weapon since a two-handed grab reduces your ability to maneuver your body out of the line of fire. We follow a simple set of guidelines:

1. Create the opportune moment. That is, psychologically distract the opponent by glancing behind him (as if someone is there) or get him to speak to you (a person's reaction time is reduced by as much as 50% when he is speaking, especially if he's giving an order).

2. Get your body out of the line of fire while you....

3. ....acquire control of the weapon and move the muzzle away from you. If at all possible, try to prevent the weapon from discharging.

4. Strike immediately. It needn't be a disabling blow, but should (at the very least) get the scumbag's attention.

5. Maintaining control of the (direction of the) muzzle, kill him.

And as has been said before, PRACTICE, PRACTICE, PRACTICE. And do it regularly. If you back off for a couple of months, your timing gets rusty...

I don't know what the experiences are of people here, and I am not sure if what I am about to mention is our evolved version of the Krav method, or if it is done in Krav as well (again, don't do krav, just borrowed this particular manaeuver and we ended up modifying it, and it was long enough ago where I can't distinguish what we modified from the origional)..

What is very important in making this thing work, we found, was that once the weapon was grabbed, you lock your arm down and into your opponents body with the barrel pointing away from you. Once the weapon is firmly gripped and that arm is locked, even with two hands he is unlikely to be able to redirect the barrel to shot you. Without locking your arm into his body, he has too much leverage and your in danger of being shot in the struggle. Test this with an airsoft you don't mind trashing, and you'll see what I mean...

Just wanted to add that little piece...:ultracool

Paul Janulis

Everyone is entitled to their own methods and principles underlining those methods. Only time will tell which ones have the best success rate. Athough I have never seen or heard of anyone who can control an attacker's trigger finger nor have I ever seen or heard of anyone who has not set off a hair trigger firearm when they have grabbed the weapon, I am sure there are people out there with those superhuman capabilities. As for me, I'll stick with the time proven principles that have left less defenders and bystanders shot, such as not grabbing the gun, not struggling with the gun, and pushing the gun away and up (definately not down). I shall stick with what I have been instructed on.

Everyone is entitled to their own methods and principles underlining those methods. Only time will tell which ones have the best success rate. Athough I have never seen or heard of anyone who can control an attacker's trigger finger nor have I ever seen or heard of anyone who has not set off a hair trigger firearm when they have grabbed the weapon, I am sure there are people out there with those superhuman capabilities. As for me, I'll stick with the time proven principles that have left less defenders and bystanders shot, such as not grabbing the gun, not struggling with the gun, and pushing the gun away and up (definately not down). I shall stick with what I have been instructed on.


Exactly! Use what works for you. As mentioned a few times, try all methods with an AirSoft gun (not exactly the same thing, but will give you an ide of what definitely does not work).

Guns will always be a tricky defense. Do not usually get a "do-over".

And I am sure they take a few extra shots now and then! :)

Yup..

Everyone is entitled to their own methods and principles underlining those methods. Only time will tell which ones have the best success rate. Athough I have never seen or heard of anyone who can control an attacker's trigger finger nor have I ever seen or heard of anyone who has not set off a hair trigger firearm when they have grabbed the weapon, I am sure there are people out there with those superhuman capabilities. As for me, I'll stick with the time proven principles that have left less defenders and bystanders shot, such as not grabbing the gun, not struggling with the gun, and pushing the gun away and up (definately not down). I shall stick with what I have been instructed on.

You are entitled to do what you think is best. I don’t mind that people do different things then we do, because frankly, without people doing different methods I don’t think we’d be in business.

But, at least have the professional integrity to recognize that none of these methods are “tried and true” because we don’t have a large enough pool of statistical evidence to prove that kind of reliability in regards to “empty hand techniques vs. the gun.” There isn’t enough evidence, even anecdotally, to prove that grabbing the hand somehow magically prevents the gun from firing over grabbing the weapon, for example. We don’t have enough evidence to prove which method has actually left “less bystanders shot.”
Furthermore, tactics like grabbing the weapon and redirecting it don’t take superhuman capabilities; saying so is only creating a “straw man” argument.

It is fine to have faith in your methods and to do what you feel is giving you, or will give you, the best results. But I think that we need to make sure that we present our ideas with the integrity that they deserve.

Everyone is entitled to their own methods and principles underlining those methods.

Agree, although depending on certain methods, you may find some are better than others.

Athough I have never seen or heard of anyone who can control an attacker's trigger finger nor have I ever seen or heard of anyone who has not set off a hair trigger firearm when they have grabbed the weapon, I am sure there are people out there with those superhuman capabilities.

Not quite sure what you mean when you say 'superhuman capabilities' but if you think about it, grabbing the gun or the hand, they're both in close proximity, so I'm not really sure where you're going with this. The chances of the gun going off on either method, grabbing the hands or the weapon itself, are still present.


As for me, I'll stick with the time proven principles that have left less defenders and bystanders shot, such as not grabbing the gun, not struggling with the gun, and pushing the gun away and up (definately not down). I shall stick with what I have been instructed on.

Proven? By whom? Please keep in mind, that there are countless methods of gun disarming. Every single one makes a blanket statement that their gun disarms are the best. Sure, in their eyes they are, and in the next guys eyes, his are the best. What matters is whats going to work for the person and suit their needs best.

As for the KM disarms, I'm not sure how much exposure you've had to them, but bystanders are taken into consideration.

Mike

Ironically, I had "Scariest Police Shootouts Vol II" on the TV today.

I wasn't glued to the show because I was multi-tasking, but I did catch two unarmed attempts against the gun.

One was somewhere in South America where a man had a hostage and was sitting with a gun to her head, both backs against the wall. The police man posed as a news camera man who would film him making his demands. The cop kept saying that he needed a closer picture and got within arms reach. Then he grabbed the gun with 1 hand pinning it against the wall (another version of the Krav method that we advocate; the use of environment if possible). He was able to successfully move the hostage away with the other hand while keeping the gun controlled, and subdue the attacker.

Another attempt was a policeman was doing a routine stop, and ended up facing an armed assailent. The cops gun remained holstered while the assailant had his gun pointed making his demands. It is interesting to note that while in front of the officer, although the criminal was within arms reach, he held the gun high and back so the cop wouldn't have been able to reach it if he tried. When the criminal got towards the rear of the policeman, however, he brought the gun down and within arms reach, and the cop made his move. With gun in holster, the cop went reaching for the gun with both hands. The assailent moved back and quickly regained control of the gun from the grab. Luckily the cop wasn't shot in the process. The cop was taken hostage, but later talked the assailent down and lived through the experience.

Anyways, these are just anecdotal incidents, and by no means give a statistical representation of which method is better under real conditions. It does beg the question, however: if the cop had reached with one hand instead of two, and at least had his other hand in transent for his sidearm, would he have been able to draw his own gun in time if his unarmed attempt failed as it did? It is a speculative question with more variables then meets the eye, however it is reasonable to consider the possability all the same.

From watching these incidents, one is reminded of a couple of things:

1. An attempted disarm, even when successful, usually won't work out in a clean, textbook fashion.
2. One has to be prepared for the environmental differences of the circumstance, and one must be trained to use these as an advantage rather then a disadvantage.
3. What might work in one context, might not in another.
4. One has to be prepared for initial attempts to not work as planned, and be ready to make adjustments for that so you don't find yourself back to square one (guy is pointing gun at you and your standing there with a dumb look) or worse (your shot).
5. One has to train what one feels is most reliable, while at the same time keeping an open mind, realizing that there is no magic answer to questions like these.

Anyway, I thought viewing these incidents were interesting. At the vary least, regardless of your method and how researched it is, or your personal biases, the above principles should probably be taken into consideration.

Paul Janulis

Good stuff Paul!

The other thing to keep in mind is who the attacker is and what his/her intent and qualifications are. Spending time around expericenced shooters will give you some insight on how they handle a gun. Some punks out there have never fired the guns they carry and are more dangerous because of that. And last but not least, the mental/physical condition of the attcker (depressed, angered, defensive, drunk, high, etc.)

Many martial arts schools can teach you some great techniques for an ideal situation, but nothing evever goes as planned. But some do not teach you to assess the situation to make your choice of defense.

One handed, two handed try to learn as many as possible.