Sword Vs. Gun

Eric Daniel

Green Belt
Joined
Sep 21, 2005
Messages
128
Reaction score
1
Location
Moses Lake, WA
Hey guys
I am not a swordfighter or anything but I would like to know what you guys think on this subject.
A couple days ago my friends and I were discussing what the supeior weapon is, a gun or a sword. I said that it depends. I think that in close range a sword would be superior and in a longer range a gun would be the superior weapon. What do you guys think?
Does anyone know the statistics on this situation? Does anyone know how fast a proffesional gunsman (like we see in Western movies) can draw a gun and how fast a samurai could draw a sword? I was just wondering. Maybe this will lead to a great thread.

Sincerely, Eric Daniel
 

Solidman82

Purple Belt
Joined
Oct 7, 2005
Messages
363
Reaction score
1
Location
Canada
actuaklly, it sort of depends how close range you're talking. If you had a guy with a sword grappling he wouldn't be very usefully besides some stabbing that may or may bot critically injure you. A gun just takes one simple movement pressed up against your body and you're dead.
 

Flying Crane

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Sep 21, 2005
Messages
15,230
Reaction score
4,920
Location
San Francisco
depends on skill. One of the inherent strengths in a gun is that it takes much less training and skill to use effectively. With a real sword, you just might stab or cut yourself if you haven't spent long hours, weeks, months, and years in training.

As a side note: this is exactly what brought about the demise of the English Longbow in the middle ages. Primitive muskets were being developed, but the effectiveness of the longbow at the time still reigned supreme. The difference was that the longbow took a lot of ongoing practice to be effective with it. The muskets could be used by most anyone who had a small amount of training.
 
OP
E

Eric Daniel

Green Belt
Joined
Sep 21, 2005
Messages
128
Reaction score
1
Location
Moses Lake, WA
Thanks for the history lesson on why the english longword died out. You have said that it depends on the skill so I will have the same question, who would win a battle, a samurai (who has trained with a sword since his birth) or a western guy like clint eastwood? Clint has a gun and a samurai has a sword. Who do you think wins? Does the winner depend on the range? If so what range do you think the samurai would win, and what range would the western(Eastwood) win?

Sincerely, Eric Daniel
 

arnisador

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 28, 2001
Messages
44,573
Reaction score
456
Location
Terre Haute, IN
Charles Bronson was in a movie like that.

I'd take the gun. The sword will rarely be a superior weapon to it.
 

Flying Crane

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Sep 21, 2005
Messages
15,230
Reaction score
4,920
Location
San Francisco
I once saw a film clip of a quick-draw gun expert, old west, six-shooter style. He pulled out the gun, fired off a round, and re-holstered it faster than I could blink. seriously. Until the film was shown in slow-motion, I did not even see the movement. Assuming his shooting is accurate, I would put my money on the gunfighter.

Of course, this is also an extreme example, Not everyone has this kind of training or ability with a gun. Probably half the people out there would end up shooting themselves. Still, my money goes with the gunfighter, all other things being equal. In reality, there are still a lot of factors that could make it go either way.

I wouldn't put my money on Clint Eastwood himself, tho. I doubt he could really pull it off.
icon10.gif


any distance greater than about three or four yards, I think the odds begin to heavily favor the guy with the gun. Not only is the beginning range out of reach of the sword, but the swordsman would have to be able to cover the ground very very quickly. Some people could probably pull it off, but I think the gunfighter has a real advantage. It also helps to have a high-capacity clip, incase you miss...
 

bignick

Senior Master
MTS Alumni
Joined
Jul 30, 2004
Messages
2,892
Reaction score
38
Location
Twin Cities
21 feet is the average range needed for a police officer to draw and fire their weapon befor a knife weilding attacker can get to them
 

Tgace

Grandmaster
Joined
Jul 31, 2003
Messages
7,766
Reaction score
409
I usually dont participate in teenage debates of sword vs. gun...samurai vs. SEAL.....lightsaber vs. M1 Abrams....less filling vs. tastes great...but I always say this.

If bladed weapons were "superior" we would still be using them. Theres a reason combat evolved into firearms. The whole 21' rule boils down to who has the initiave...who makes the first move. You jump a person with any weapon not in hand and the 21' rule applies. Try drawing a knife and charging me from 21' when I already have my sights on you......Its not just a blade vs. gun thing.
 

arnisador

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 28, 2001
Messages
44,573
Reaction score
456
Location
Terre Haute, IN
The 21 foot rule assumes the opponent has his knife at the ready and is charging. Yes, if one person has a drawn sword and the other person has a holstered gun then, depending on the range, the sword might be better...but that's giving the sword-wielder an extra advantage.

Incidentally, in those scenarios the knifer typically ends up shot to death...it's just that he gets a stab or two in before he goes.
 

arnisador

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 28, 2001
Messages
44,573
Reaction score
456
Location
Terre Haute, IN

Tgace

Grandmaster
Joined
Jul 31, 2003
Messages
7,766
Reaction score
409
arnisador said:
The 21 foot rule assumes the opponent has his knife at the ready and is charging. Yes, if one person has a drawn sword and the other person has a holstered gun then, depending on the range, the sword might be better...but that's giving the sword-wielder an extra advantage.

Incidentally, in those scenarios the knifer typically ends up shot to death...it's just that he gets a stab or two in before he goes.

Yup...and even within 21' thats assuming the shooter stands still and trys to draw. I have done simmunition training that shows that if you MOVE! Laterally...behind cover...stiff arm the attacker and take a few arm cuts as you back pedal etc...you can get your shots off effectively and not get stabbed to death.
 

Cryozombie

Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Feb 11, 2003
Messages
9,998
Reaction score
206
I'm gonna disagree with all of you.

The 21' rule applies to any weapon, not just a knife.

:D

I know, Im nit-picking...

Hey which is better, The Enterprise or the Deathstar?

I think the debate between Sword/Gun is moot... each has its place. I'd rather have a gun in a straight up confrontation, understanding, of course, that if I dont drop that guy with the sword before he closes, the gun aint saving me at that point. If I pump 2 rounds in him before he chops my head off, we may both die, but the gun didnt save me.

By the same token, in my house, in the dark, I might choose my sword over my gun if I know there is an intruder... because if I am in my darkened bedroom room hiding alongside/behind the door, and I know somone is in the house, I FEEL the advantage is still with me, and If I can take the SOB from below/behind as he comes thru the door... and not worry about my round killing my neighbor, roommate, or houseguests.

Similarily, in a crowded environment, if I was pressed to engage an opponent and NEEDED a weapon, I would most likely NOT go for my gun... a knife, club, sword or whatnot would serve me better. (assuming, theoretically, I had one on me)

Although I guess that doesnt address the Question of Who would Win, Clint Eastwood or a Samurai.
 

Tgace

Grandmaster
Joined
Jul 31, 2003
Messages
7,766
Reaction score
409
Tgace said:
I usually dont participate in teenage debates of sword vs. gun...samurai vs. SEAL.....lightsaber vs. M1 Abrams....less filling vs. tastes great...but I always say this.

If bladed weapons were "superior" we would still be using them. Theres a reason combat evolved into firearms. The whole 21' rule boils down to who has the initiave...who makes the first move. You jump a person with any weapon not in hand and the 21' rule applies. Try drawing a knife and charging me from 21' when I already have my sights on you......Its not just a blade vs. gun thing.

I said the same thing. ;)

The main advantage of a firearm is its range and the fact that little to no strength is required to operate them. Yes a gunfighter needs to be able to "fight" with a gun, but theoretically, a paralyzed man in a wheelchair that can only move one hand can shoot you. When properly employed, a gun can negate many physical disparities.
 

Odin

2nd Black Belt
Joined
Nov 16, 2005
Messages
858
Reaction score
8
Location
England
I remember I saw this documentry on discovery once that was listing the worlds top 10 greatest weapons (incase you were wondering the human mind came first!) and I remember Andy McNab was upset because a kitana sword scored higher then a gun,he said simply if your standing on the over side of that field with a sword and im standing here with a ->insert complex gun name<- rifle what exactly can you do to harm me with a bloody sword?what throw it???with a gun distance does not really become a factor,(antone seen the end of tom cruises last samurai??lets charge then guns!!yeah!....whoops maybe we shouldnt have....)but hey check these links out...kitana vs bullet!!

http://www.compfused.com/directlink/252/

http://www.compfused.com/directlink/608/
 
S

Shane Smith

Guest
Solidman82 said:
actuaklly, it sort of depends how close range you're talking. If you had a guy with a sword grappling he wouldn't be very usefully besides some stabbing that may or may bot critically injure you. A gun just takes one simple movement pressed up against your body and you're dead.

The above is untrue in the European tradition. There are many techniques that involve arm and shoulder breaks from the bind or the grapple that would go much further to disable a guy on the spot that a random thrust or three. There are several throwing techniques that land an opponent on the back of their un-protected head. There are various slices and halfswording levers used at krieg as well...all of which are designed to take a man out with the sword at pressed-flesh range. The steel pommel of the longsword makes for a vicious pummeling instrument as well(that's arguably where the modern word "pummel" comes from according to some researchers). The above does not even enter the realm of WMA unarmed ringen which is very formidable in it's own right to seriously injure an opponent right now.

Also consider that a gunshot is far from always being an immediate stopper of hostilities. What good was your .38 snubby to you if your tactics allowed a Swordsman to lop off your head before he bled out(a drastic dismemberment by blade is perhaps a more sure stopper than a gunshot to the abdomen...It's the old rapier versus cut and thrust debate in another guise..).

All the above said, I'll take my .45, but I'll be sure to use it from beyond the reach of the Swordsman.Better yet, I'll take my M14 and affix the bayonet so that I can shoot him and when he gets closer, I'll use polearm tactics to run him through%-} :boing2:
 

Cyber Ninja

Green Belt
Joined
Aug 16, 2005
Messages
118
Reaction score
0
I'm gonna have to take a "gun" on this one. Swords are nice, but if given the opportunity, I would take a gun to a knife/sword fight.
 

Cryozombie

Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Feb 11, 2003
Messages
9,998
Reaction score
206
Shane Smith said:
Also consider that a gunshot is far from always being an immediate stopper of hostilities. What good was your .38 snubby to you if your tactics allowed a Swordsman to lop off your head before he bled out(a drastic dismemberment by blade is perhaps a more sure stopper than a gunshot to the abdomen...

Thats what I just said!
 
OP
E

Eric Daniel

Green Belt
Joined
Sep 21, 2005
Messages
128
Reaction score
1
Location
Moses Lake, WA
Sounds like most people go with the gun. my question is why? I think that if your close enough a sword can cut the person before they shoot their gun. The weserners might have been fast with a gun but the samurai's were fast with a sword.
As far as evolution I sort of agree. Guns are now used and not swords but I don't know (think) it's because it's superior to the sword. I think it's because people have more fun with guns.

Sincerely, Eric Daniel
 

arnisador

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 28, 2001
Messages
44,573
Reaction score
456
Location
Terre Haute, IN
Eric Daniel said:
Sounds like most people go with the gun. my question is why? I think that if your close enough a sword can cut the person before they shoot their gun. The weserners might have been fast with a gun but the samurai's were fast with a sword.

But the Japanese Defense Forces now use rifles. Why? Because, in general, they're a superior weapon.
 

Tgace

Grandmaster
Joined
Jul 31, 2003
Messages
7,766
Reaction score
409
Eric Daniel said:
Guns are now used and not swords but I don't know (think) it's because it's superior to the sword. I think it's because people have more fun with guns.

Sincerely, Eric Daniel

Fun? I dont think people who have had to shoot to live would agree. Name me any culture of signifigance who hasnt given up the sword for the rifle?

Maybe the Knife vs. gun in a "street confrontation" debate has some merit (who carries swords around anyway???) , but in COMBAT the firearm beat the sword hundreds of years ago. If we are talking about attacking or defending a position you can keep your sword and ill keep my M4 and we'll see who comes out on top.
 

Latest Discussions

Top