When does size matter?

[shesulsa]

I have already posted here that one knife I like to carry is a small folder - Ken Onion's Chive.

There have been generalized statements I've heard that come down the pike which indicate that a knife wound must be 6" deep before contacting internal organs which would preclude my 3" folder from doing much but ruining my very own day.

Now - with a stabbing strike to the abdomen, if pressing into the body, it's not terribly difficult to press in about 3" and with a 3" extension you can read the organs. My problem is the thought that once a person is stabbed, isn't the reflex of the body to tense that muscle which may be punctured? Would this not inhibit the depth of the wound?

Thoughts?

 

[MA-Caver]

It depends if one sees the knife or not, even at the last possible second that there's the flash of metal and the mind screams KNIFE!!! and depending upon the conditioning of the mind how the body will react. If the blade and point is sharp (as all knives should be) it really wouldn't matter if the body is tensed up or relaxed.
I've been stabbed in the gut unexpectedly by a mid-sized folder (least I think that what it was) and the blade slipped in easily enough cause it was sharp. I got very lucky that it was a simple in and out and not an in, twist and then out. More like the guy punched me with the blade than anything else.
It's often been said: "Size doesn't matter as long as the user knows how to use it." This (also) relates to a blade. Even a pen knife can be used for effect if its sharp and in the hands of a knowledgeablee user. The jugular, cartoid and other arteries are not that far beneath the surface of the skin and tissue. Loss of blood is (to me) more damaging than an organ injury, especially if major veins and arteries are cut where first aid pressure cannot be applied well or to effect.
An example of that would be the area between the collar bones and the arm-pit (two of my favorite knife targets ... if I can get to them), though 3 or more inches of steel are required, not a pen-knife.
I recall seeing a table somewhere on the net or some military manual (at a surplus store) that gave life expectancies for a person that was stabbed/shot in specified areas. Reading something like that and a good knowledge of human anatomy helps your knife attacks become more effective.

Terminator: I have detailed files on human anatomy.
Sarah Conner: I'll bet. It makes you a more efficient killer.
Terminator: Correct.

 

[celtic_crippler]

It's not like in the movies....you don't stab someone once and they simply fall over. =-P

An effective knife fighter will "pick" you apart. Making slashes to areas to cause extensive blood loss. If you're defending yourself against an attacker, your "3 blade is enough to slash at their wrist, the tops of thier hands, and inner forearms as they grab for you. It doesn't take long before they will weaken from the blood loss and allow you to either leave the scene safely, or access more critical targets...that is if your intent is to "finish them off."

 

[frank raud]

I
I recall seeing a table somewhere on the net or some military manual (at a surplus store) that gave life expectancies for a person that was stabbed/shot in specified areas. Reading something like that and a good knowledge of human anatomy helps your knife attacks become more effective.

The timetable you are probably referring to is from Fairbairn's Get Tough!, there are a lot of questions as to the accuracy of the times given(hard to find volunteers to experiment with)

I'm not sure about having to penetrate 6 inches to get to an organ, that implies a LOT of fat or muscle on your opponent. As MA Caver has pointed out, there are also areas on the body (neck,kidneys, collarbone region) where vital organs or arteries are located close to the surface.

Short blade, held reverse grip edge in(Pikal) can cause a LOT of damage, using the large muscle of the back to cut on the backstroke.

I usually carry a Kershaw Talon, it has a roughly 3 inch hawkbill blade, partially serrated. I would probably feel inadequate against a sword, but if you know how to use something short, you can compensate.

 

[pstarr]

Absolutely! A two-inch blade can be downright lethal if you know how to use it and where to strike. A six-inch penetration to the viscera - well, that lad would be a bit...chunky.

I teach knife-fighting seminars and there are very few places where you can cut or thrust into an opponent that will bring the fight to sudden close. But you don't need a large blade at all.

What you do need is a reliable weapon that's comfortable in your hand - and, of course, good training.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Yes, your three inch folding knife can be very dangerous up to including lethal. Every blade needs to be respected. The 6 " rule that some people talk about is generally for a heart strike.

Brian R. VanCise
www.instinctiveresponsetraining.com

 

[Cruentus]

Thoughts?

Yes, it would (be difficult to do an abdomen stab as effectively as with a larger blade).

But that doesn't make your 1 1/2 inch blade not a useful weapon (I think the chive is 1 1/2 inches in the blade, but maybe close to 3" including handle).

Your fight plan with a small blade is different then a longer blade. Your not going to focus on stabbing the abdomen with a small blade. Your going to focus on limb slicing when that is available, and attacking the neck, head, and eyes.

How you hold it and access it will also differ with smaller blades.

Your fight plan will differ slightly with a different weapon.

 

[TonyMac]

Sorry to stir it up, but I feel anyone that carries a folder or a fixed blade under five inches is foolish.

 

[Jimi]

I agree, if you know well what targets to hit, a short blade can be very damaging. If the knife weilder does not have any training and thrusts a short blade at my abdomin ( I have been inactive for several months and packed on weight) I doubt the blade would reach an organ, not that I would be so casual about recieving a short knife thrust to the body, I would freak. Someone with out training with a longer blade (Crocidile Dundee Style) could easily damage organs with a compitent thrust to the body, and of course such a larger blade is more difficult to conceal. Size can matter, but not always. There are no absolutes in self defense save 1, if you lose, you lose absolutely. You may die in training a thousand times and still only have minimal chances for survival once a blade enters the equation. Stay safe. PEACE

 

[KenpoTex]

I generally prefer blades 4-5" long (or more). Obviously a lot of damage can be done with a 1.5-2" blade, but unless it's illegal to carry anything larger, why limit yourself?

 

[Knarfan]

Sorry to stir it up, but I feel anyone that carries a folder or a fixed blade under five inches is foolish.

couldn't it also be said that anyone who carries a 5" blade would be foolish? Especially when it would be outside the limits of the law? I usually carry a 3 or 4" blade. One thing to keep in mind is that you might not want to carry somthing that is going to make it difficult to defend yourself in a court of law. If you have the training you can do plenty of damage with a 3 or 4" blade. I'm not saying you don't have alot of knife training? but, if you don't, I think it would help you to make a better choice on the weapon that you would feel secure carrying. If you train more you might not feel the need to carry a large blade. I'm not saying that your wrong for carrying a 5" blade but, IMO you can be plenty effective with a 3 or 4" blade. You can't call somone foolish for carrying a legal size (3 or 4") blade, can you?

 

[Cruentus]

Sorry to stir it up, but I feel anyone that carries a folder or a fixed blade under five inches is foolish.

In most places, that's illegal. I personally think that people should carry what they want, but I wouldn't call people "foolish" for obeying the law.

 

[pstarr]

A person who is well trained in the use of a knife doesn't need such a large blade at all. 2-3 inches is plenty enough if you know how to use it.

Myself, I like large blades but carrying a Bowie around is a bit impractical as well as illegal.

 

[pstarr]

A person who is well trained in the use of a knife doesn't need such a large blade at all. 2-3 inches is plenty enough if you know how to use it.

Myself, I like large blades but carrying a Bowie around is a bit impractical as well as illegal.

%-}

 

[Jonathan Randall]

I remember hearing about a prostitute who stabbed an abusive customer to death with a very short knife. Don't remember the specifics, I was young and overheard a conversation I wasn't meant to, but I think any blade can theoretically kill. However; if I were Special Forces or something similiar (I supress a laugh as I type this since I've read about their selection process and training), I'd wan't a longer blade. At least five to six inches.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

A person who is well trained in the use of a knife doesn't need such a large blade at all. 2-3 inches is plenty enough if you know how to use it.

Myself, I like large blades but carrying a Bowie around is a bit impractical as well as illegal.

This is definately true. Really any length of blade can be used for self defense and personal protection. You really just need to understand human anatomy of where to cut or thrust. Now having said that I would always go for a longer blade if possible. Yet, most of the time I am relegated to carrying a folder 3" or less because of the laws passed in our nation. Yet, I am perfectly comfortable carrying a legal folding knife that works efficiently for my everyday use as well as providing a personal protection tool if I would need it. :ultracool

Brian R. VanCise
www.instinctiveresponsetraining.com