Mastery of a bad weapon vs untrained or basic training using far superior weapons

[7BallZ]

For simplicity’s sake, lets just stick to melee weapon.

And I will only use the knife for my example.

First incredibly related to my question. WATCH THE VIDEO from start to end, even though its unarmed because its a fundamental car part to what I’m asking.

Now to bring a popular fictional analogy. In Dungeons and Dragons and Computer Role Playing Games, there exists a hierarchy when it comes to weapons. Surprisingly many RPGs are spot on with your statements of how different weapon types tend to have different strengths and weaknesses and are best in different circumstances. Knives are typically stereotyped in D and D and Computer RPGs as having short reach and relatively low damage but excel in speed and often get bonus damage from surprise attacks thus being ideal for close range. Long swords are well balanced weapons typically useful in all ranges but not excelling at any particular one. Maces, clubs, and other blunt weapons excelling at mid range and having destructive on hit KO power. Staves and spears having long hit detection and being the best at longer range. A few more game series with more advanced mechanics take it even further. For example knives may be typically faster than a spear but at long range spear weapons have much quicker attack range and speed than even the best knives under the fastest player and the RPGs with the most sophisticated mechanics even did different attacks. One computer game I played at my friend’s house features at long range your spear automatically attacks with lightning speed but in super close range you have options for either changing the spear into an improvised club but with pathetic damage and attack speed or attempt to thrust overhead but leaving you expose and lower defenses in excahnge for a possible killing blow.

But all these Role Playing Games (even the most advanced mechanically) feature one thing that bugs me. No matter how much of a crappy situation you find your character stuck (eg you have to use a knife and close in against a spearman from 10 feet away), if your “skill point” for using a specific weapon is far higher (and especially when combined with far superior attributes), you’ll always WIN in the end.

For example when I was playing The Elder Scrolls Online, even though my opponent was using a heavy war club (which had a damage of 500 points) against my crappy longsword (which only did 2 damage) and we were fighting specifically at medium range (the range where blunt weapon EXCELS in the game), I won in the end. Simply because my skill level for longsword was so high (at level 80). while my opponent’s blunt skill was just at amateur (level 05 literally). So even though clubs are far superior at toe-to-toe range to sword and his specific weapon was high quality, the difference in skill points decided the match.

Hell even in battles between two people who are quite trained enough to have mastered the fundamentals of weapons, someone who is far superior with his specific tool will still win. In World of Warcraft a quick Rogue with a speed of 230 closed in to my mage and was using his knife to stab me to death. The Rogue had a level 70 “close range” weapons skill and was using one of the strongest knives in the game. My mage only had a speed of 30. However my mage mastered the staff skill (level 300). So even though knife is far superior at close range according and staff weapons are considered worthless at knife range according to gameplay mechanic and despite the fact my opponent was considered by the system as being quite skilled with close range weapons (he even gets ranked in his character stats as “expert”), because my mage had a huge gap in skill I was able to take out this rogue.

In an odd sitaution, when I was playing MIght and Magic even though my knight was armed to the teeth, I couldn’t hurt a wild lion because my skill with longsword was merely at level 10. I was only able to kill the lion after finally sheating my sword and using fistcuffs to beat the lion to death (as my knight’s skill in “strike enhancers” unarmed weapons EG steel toed shoes and metallic gloves was at level 50, far superior than my knight’s longsword skill).

I may sound like I’m ranting. But rewatch the Youtube video I linked at the top of my question again before reading the rest of what I’ll say (BECAUSE its that important).

Nick Drossos states that one of the MOST lovely STUPIDEST things that happens in violence is people getting too “emotionally-attached” to a specific attack. To the point they force in trying to use their favorite moves under situations that hampers said technique power and mechanics, if not make it outright impossible or even suicidal to use such a technique.

Its already bad enough that mass entertainment shows people doing techniques that are crappy for circumstances (like trying to your opponent throw high kicks in an enclosed closet or people trying to throw boxing style punches while when you got attacked while sitting in a desk at university). And people being lacking the common sense and following movies.

BUT just the HOLLYWOOD even portrays the same thing with weapons. Just saw a film about a Chinese resistance fighter in World War II who decides to take on a bunch of Japanese soldiers. He pulls out a Nunchaku and is able to kill over 30 Japs armed with bayonets and swords ina melee.

Just as Nick Drossos points out people becoming so “emotionally bonded” to an unarmed technique that they refuse to adapt and change to a more appropriate move under different circumstances, in real life there are incidents of people taking the weapons they earned a blackbelt in and using it in street fights.

However one thing that confuses me-so far all the real life coverage portrays said martial artists as being effectively using such crappy weapons and defeating hardcore thugs and violence professionals. I saw a few years ago of a person getting a nunchuck and successfully taking out a biker armed with a baseball bat at a bar in the daily news and I just recently saw an article about a group of policemen (equipped with batons and tasers) getting easily pawned by someone trained in Kali sticks.

Looking at the news, its as though I’m seeing Computer RPG mechanics and Dungeons and Dragons rule come to life. Even though they are using weapons under circumstances they are not meant for, well-trained martial artists are winning.

However Marc MacYoung and RBSD mentioned that repeatedly how important it is to recognize the properties of weapons. When it comes to knives, they always emphasize contraire to what traditional martial arts instructors says the knife is one of the worst weapons to in most circumstances and real pros at violence would use other far better weapons as a first resort (and only pull out knives as a backup).

In addition they also emphasize despite the claim of effectiveness of improvised weapons, any well-trained swordsman would quickly cut down a master of using the paddle oar in combat. Hell I seen RBSD guys (MacYoung in his books especially) state someone untrained with real weapons such as spears and war clubs but committed enough to getting you would probably quickly kill a blackbelt who mastered the Tanto.

So I am curious in real life how much does the “skill” mechanics of Role Playing Games apply? I already know you hold a low opinion of using stuff like fistcuffs and Hanbos. But with all the news showing people armed with these improvised stuff like an Irish guy wearing fistcuffs Koing some thugs armed with a tire irons and people using Cane martial arts to even successfully take out people armed with military weapons like a bayonet (actually saw this at a martial arts exhibition), it makes me wonder if emotional attachment is better?

I mean if you mastered using the bo staff would it be better to stick with a staff even if there’s a broad sword nearby and my enemy intends to hack me with a war mace and is in plate armor (but is untrained)? A silly scenario I know but I just saw this at a HEMA exhibition too where someone tried to take on another an opponent who’s in full plate armour. His training with swords was subpar so he couldn’t beat the plated armor guy. He than switched to quarterstaffs and quickly pawned the dude in knight’s armour (evne though the knight dude had some training in sword). Quarter staff user than used that as proof of how someone who’s mastered a specific weapon can win a fight even though he’s using a worse weapon and the opponent is well-armoured and well-trained in swordsmaship. So long as he’s using the weaponry he mastered (no matter how much they aren’t designed to fight armoured opponents).

So I am curious if there is some truth to RPG mechanics? Or if even assuming someone mastered every technique using a knife, he will always lose against someone just trained in the basics using a club? I lack training in swordsmanship but if I got a sword and fought a blackbelt who’s mastered everything about using the Eku (boat oar), would I lose even using a far superior weapon?

I am just confused with how these martial arts masters are winning agaiagainstnt far superior weapons under shitty circumstances despite RBSD's statements about someone even descently trained with swords will always win against a nunchaku master.

 

[Jenna]

To help clarify your point, could you suggest a real example of where this might happen? like I mean if you have mastered your knife, who might you be defending against where that person has a superior weapon? you mean like a sociopath roaming on the streets with a katana?

 

[Tony Dismukes]

To begin with, don't worry too much about movies or RPG rules. Their depiction of fighting (and most other things) is almost always unrealistic in a number of ways.

Putting that aside, the essence of your question seems to be "can superior skill prevail over superior weaponry?"

The short answer is, yes it can, sometimes. Other times superior weaponry can prevail over superior skill. There are a lot of factors that can affect the outcome of a fight.

Let's break it down a bit more, because I think you may not have a realistic idea of what constitutes "superior weaponry."

Weapons are a force multiplier, so almost any weapon against an unarmed opponent is a huge advantage. A highly trained martial artist can be killed by a completely untrained assailant with a knife. It is possible for the unarmed fighter to win in that circumstance, but at least some luck will be required.

Once you get to melee weapon vs melee weapon, the difference in effectiveness is not as extreme as you seem to imagine. What difference exists is largely situational.

Lets compare a pocket knife to a war hammer.

If the combatants are on a medieval battlefield dressed in full plate armor, then the war hammer has a huge advantage. It is designed for penetrating heavy armor. The pocket knife is ineffective both for penetrating plate armor and for blocking the swings of the opponent's weapon. In such a battle, the combatant armed with a war hammer would win against his pocket knife wielding adversary the vast majority of the time, even if the knife user was more skilled.

Contrariwise, imagine the combatants are unarmored and are fighting in a phone booth. In this situation the knife wielder can inflict multiple lethal wounds in seconds, while the war hammer user would have no room to swing his weapon and would be better off trying to grapple for control of the knife.

Beyond extreme cases like what I've outlined above, the "superiority" of one melee weapon over another is more a matter of percentages than any overwhelming advantage.

However one thing that confuses me-so far all the real life coverage portrays said martial artists as being effectively using such crappy weapons and defeating hardcore thugs and violence professionals. I saw a few years ago of a person getting a nunchuck and successfully taking out a biker armed with a baseball bat at a bar in the daily news and I just recently saw an article about a group of policemen (equipped with batons and tasers) getting easily pawned by someone trained in Kali sticks.

Nunchaku vs baseball bat - not an huge advantage for one over another, except that the nunchaku generally requires more training to use effectively.

Kali stick vs batons & tasers - the kali sticks are essentially the same thing as the batons. The tasers are a situational tool that have to be deployed at the right moment - I guess they weren't in this case.

However Marc MacYoung and RBSD mentioned that repeatedly how important it is to recognize the properties of weapons. When it comes to knives, they always emphasize contraire to what traditional martial arts instructors says the knife is one of the worst weapons to in most circumstances and real pros at violence would use other far better weapons as a first resort (and only pull out knives as a backup).

Cite? I've never encountered a RBSD instructor claiming that a knife was an ineffective weapon.

In addition they also emphasize despite the claim of effectiveness of improvised weapons, any well-trained swordsman would quickly cut down a master of using the paddle oar in combat. Hell I seen RBSD guys (MacYoung in his books especially) state someone untrained with real weapons such as spears and war clubs but committed enough to getting you would probably quickly kill a blackbelt who mastered the Tanto.

I'm not sure that a RBSD instructor has any special expertise regarding swords or other medieval battlefield weaponry.

Sword vs oar: the swordsman has a substantial advantage. Any hit he lands can easily be lethal, especially against an unarmored opponent. In addition, his weapon is better balanced and faster. That doesn't mean the oarsman couldn't win. It just means the odds are stacked against him, even if he has a higher level of skill.

Spears vs knife (tanto): as in my earlier example, this is situational. On the battlefield, starting from distance, the spear has a huge advantage. For assassination at close range, the knife has the advantage.

Please note that "having an advantage" does not mean "will always win every time." It's always possible to beat the odds. Not likely, but certainly possible.

Or if even assuming someone mastered every technique using a knife, he will always lose against someone just trained in the basics using a club? I lack training in swordsmanship but if I got a sword and fought a blackbelt who’s mastered everything about using the Eku (boat oar), would I lose even using a far superior weapon?

See my comments above. BTW - you seem to believe that a knife is inherently inferior to the club. This is not the case. Personally, I'd rather fight against an attacker with a club than an attacker with a knife under most circumstances.

I am just confused with how these martial arts masters are winning agaiagainstnt far superior weapons under shitty circumstances despite RBSD's statements about someone even descently trained with swords will always win against a nunchaku master.

Where are you finding RBSD instructors expressing opinions about swords vs nunchaku? That's not within the area of expertise for most RBSD practitioners. Also I highly doubt that any competent RBSD instructor would say that the combatant with the superior weapon will always win.

As I've noted in other threads, I think you are majorly misinterpreting whatever it is you are reading from these supposed RBSD instructors.

 

[Danny T]

Other than the use of non reality exciting entertainment examples in an attempt to understand reality I'm also curious about your use of the term pawn.
Something pawned is to have been put forth or pledged as security for a loan
or the state of being pledged or something used as a pledge.
It was originally an English foot soldier and that give the name to the chess piece.
Just curious.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Other than the use of non reality exciting entertainment examples in an attempt to understand reality I'm also curious about your use of the term pawn.
Something pawned is to have been put forth or pledged as security for a loan
or the state of being pledged or something used as a pledge.
It was originally an English foot soldier and that give the name to the chess piece.
Just curious.

I believe he meant to type "pwned".

 

[7BallZ]

To begin with, don't worry too much about movies or RPG rules. Their depiction of fighting (and most other things) is almost always unrealistic in a number of ways.

Putting that aside, the essence of your question seems to be "can superior skill prevail over superior weaponry?"

The short answer is, yes it can, sometimes. Other times superior weaponry can prevail over superior skill. There are a lot of factors that can affect the outcome of a fight.

Let's break it down a bit more, because I think you may not have a realistic idea of what constitutes "superior weaponry."

Weapons are a force multiplier, so almost any weapon against an unarmed opponent is a huge advantage. A highly trained martial artist can be killed by a completely untrained assailant with a knife. It is possible for the unarmed fighter to win in that circumstance, but at least some luck will be required.

Once you get to melee weapon vs melee weapon, the difference in effectiveness is not as extreme as you seem to imagine. What difference exists is largely situational.

Lets compare a pocket knife to a war hammer.

If the combatants are on a medieval battlefield dressed in full plate armor, then the war hammer has a huge advantage. It is designed for penetrating heavy armor. The pocket knife is ineffective both for penetrating plate armor and for blocking the swings of the opponent's weapon. In such a battle, the combatant armed with a war hammer would win against his pocket knife wielding adversary the vast majority of the time, even if the knife user was more skilled.

Contrariwise, imagine the combatants are unarmored and are fighting in a phone booth. In this situation the knife wielder can inflict multiple lethal wounds in seconds, while the war hammer user would have no room to swing his weapon and would be better off trying to grapple for control of the knife.

Beyond extreme cases like what I've outlined above, the "superiority" of one melee weapon over another is more a matter of percentages than any overwhelming advantage.



Nunchaku vs baseball bat - not an huge advantage for one over another, except that the nunchaku generally requires more training to use effectively.

Kali stick vs batons & tasers - the kali sticks are essentially the same thing as the batons. The tasers are a situational tool that have to be deployed at the right moment - I guess they weren't in this case.



Cite? I've never encountered a RBSD instructor claiming that a knife was an ineffective weapon.



I'm not sure that a RBSD instructor has any special expertise regarding swords or other medieval battlefield weaponry.

Sword vs oar: the swordsman has a substantial advantage. Any hit he lands can easily be lethal, especially against an unarmored opponent. In addition, his weapon is better balanced and faster. That doesn't mean the oarsman couldn't win. It just means the odds are stacked against him, even if he has a higher level of skill.

Spears vs knife (tanto): as in my earlier example, this is situational. On the battlefield, starting from distance, the spear has a huge advantage. For assassination at close range, the knife has the advantage.

Please note that "having an advantage" does not mean "will always win every time." It's always possible to beat the odds. Not likely, but certainly possible.



See my comments above. BTW - you seem to believe that a knife is inherently inferior to the club. This is not the case. Personally, I'd rather fight against an attacker with a club than an attacker with a knife under most circumstances.



Where are you finding RBSD instructors expressing opinions about swords vs nunchaku? That's not within the area of expertise for most RBSD practitioners. Also I highly doubt that any competent RBSD instructor would say that the combatant with the superior weapon will always win.

As I've noted in other threads, I think you are majorly misinterpreting whatever it is you are reading from these supposed RBSD instructors.

Some quotes from Marc MacYoung

Okinawan improvised weapons might have worked to surprise and kill an obnoxious samurai, but they couldn't stand up against a sword in the hands of a trained and ready fighter. It is an indisputable fact that people who used peasant weapons stayed peasants.

If you try to disarm a competent swordsman with sai alone, you're going to get killed.

Perhaps one of the best examples of concepts being taken out of context -- and then misinterpreted -- is Kubudo. Kubudo is the Okinawan weapons system, mostly based on the fact that the Okinawans were legally prohibited from carrying weapons. As such, they developed a fighting system based on agrarian and fishing items that would be immediately available. Items like nuncaku (nunchucks), sais, tonfas, kamas, eku (boat oar) and tekko (modified net pulling tools) are NOT weapons in and of themselves. They are tools that can be used as improvised weapons. Against an actual weapon -- especially in the hands of someone who knows how to use it -- they WILL fail.

To begin with a knife is not a weapon, it is a tool. It is because of its popularity of carry, however, a tool that can be -- and often is -- used as a weapon. But then again, so is a ballpeen hammer in certain circles. That's a tool when used as a weapon, not only gives you greater range than a knife, but greater stopping power too. (Bet your knife-fighting master didn't tell you that did he?) If you are looking for weapons, there are much more effective ones out there than that cute little folder in your pocket. And while maybe the punks don't know it, the serious bad guys do... and that's what they carry. All this babbling about knives as self-defense weapons is going to leave you woefully unprepared to handle the big nasties.

First off, realize a knife is a tool. Can it be used as an improvised weapon? Sure. But, as a weapon, it generally sucks except in VERY specialized circumstances. And the modifications, that make a knife an effective weapon, render it useless as a tool. Ye Olde Tool aspect is about what 99 percent of knife use. So unless you're a ninja assassin, odds are your knife use is going to be tool oriented (And even ninjas have to cut the food on their plate. So figure three meals a day, means you have to assassinate at least four people a day to make sure the statistical use remains overwhelmingly on the weapon side).

A Knife Is A TOOL!
Let's start with this important fact.

Tools do things your hand, fingers and teeth can't. You can't hammer a nail with your fist, you can't cut down a tree with your fingers you can't carve with your teeth. As such, tools allow you to do a variety of jobs and applications. The key word here is variety.

A weapon on the other hand is a modified tool. These modifications make it only good for one thing. In exchange for this specialization, it is useless as a tool. For example, a dagger is a double-edged blade that allows cutting in either direction. This modification removes your ability to put your thumb/finger on the back of the blade ... a critical component in tool use.

Can a tool be used as a weapon? Yes. But the point here is that it is ALWAYS an improvised weapon. As such, it will NEVER be as over-all effective at the task as an item specifically designed as a weapon. Can it still kill? Yes any tool can be abused in this manner. But the design of the tool is not for killing. It lacks the specific modifications necessary to make it a weapon.

And other RBSD instructors (some who are also into HEMA and Kobudo) also agree with MacYoung's statements.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

BUT just the HOLLYWOOD even portrays the same thing with weapons. Just saw a film about a Chinese resistance fighter in World War II who decides to take on a bunch of Japanese soldiers. He pulls out a Nunchaku and is able to kill over 30 Japs armed with bayonets and swords ina melee.

I wasn't going to go into depth regarding your movie/RPG examples, but I will note that the really unrealistic part of the scene you describe is not "nunchaku beats sword". It's "one fighter defeats 30 soldiers in melee combat."

 

[Buka]

Orcophile, it might also help to think about the mechanics of the games you play. I believe they are programed (if that's the right technical word) to give the players different ways to go - depending on what skill levels they develop.

It's kind of relative to real life training, you'll be as good as your training - and the level of skill you develop in that training. Add some luck and sense, we all might make it.

And Tony Dismukes is one patient instructor. Lot to learn there.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Some quotes from Marc MacYoung














And other RBSD instructors (some who are also into HEMA and Kobudo) also agree with MacYoung's statements.

Okay, regarding Marc's statements...

His comments regarding Kobudo weapons are generalizations. He certainly isn't addressing the idea what might happen if the Kobudo practitioner has superior training to the sword-wielding samurai.

He's addressing the myth that the Okinawan Kobudo weapons were designed for peasants to defeat Samurai. In this, he is correct. In a confrontation between a Samurai and an Okinawan farmer wielding a pair of sai, the samurai would typically have the advantage of superior weaponry, superior armor, and superior training. (Not to mention the Samurai would have the force of government and an army behind him to take retribution if he happened to lose.) Could a kobudo master potentially defeat a not-so-competent samurai if he got lucky? Sure, but that would be an exceptional event and Marc is addressing the normal usage of these weapons, which was civilian self-defense not fighting against soldiers.

As far as his comments regarding knives, I'd have to see what weapons he is comparing them to and in what context. (Also note that he seems to be talking about the use of knives designed for other purposes, not knives designed specifically for fighting.)

 

[Danny T]

I believe he meant to type "pwned".

Ok had to look that up. This is interesting.
'Pwn' is a script kiddie term derived from the term 'own' meaning to have conquered, dominated, or humiliated.
Script kiddie is from the computer hacking culture and is one generally assumed to be a juvenile who lack the ability to write in a sophisticated manner and are trying to impress others.
So 'pwned' means owned.
Got it.

 

[Tez3]

Ok had to look that up. This is interesting.
'Pwn' is a script kiddie term derived from the term 'own' meaning to have conquered, dominated, or humiliated.
Script kiddie is from the computer hacking culture and is one generally assumed to be a juvenile who lack the ability to write in a sophisticated manner and are trying to impress others.
So 'pwned' means owned.
Got it.

I think this explains a lot more than just the so called word.

 

[Dirty Dog]

I have noticed that many of Orcophiles' posts share the common denominator of an apparent difficulty differentiating between reality and fantasy...

 

[lklawson]

Some quotes from Marc MacYoung

And other RBSD instructors (some who are also into HEMA and Kobudo) also agree with MacYoung's statements.

Riiiight...

Because these things are definitely designed as tools, most certainly not weapons.

 

[lklawson]

For simplicity’s sake, lets just stick to melee weapon.

[... bunch of rambling fantasy stuff clipped ...]

I am just confused with how these martial arts masters are winning agaiagainstnt far superior weapons under shitty circumstances despite RBSD's statements about someone even descently trained with swords will always win against a nunchaku master.

Hey Developers... Can we please add a "WTF?!?" rating right between "Disagree" and "Funny?"

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[JowGaWolf]

Other than the use of non reality exciting entertainment examples in an attempt to understand reality I'm also curious about your use of the term pawn.
Something pawned is to have been put forth or pledged as security for a loan
or the state of being pledged or something used as a pledge.
It was originally an English foot soldier and that give the name to the chess piece.
Just curious.

I'll let you and Tony enjoy the madness of this one.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Riiiight...

Because these things are definitely designed as tools, most certainly not weapons.

I own a set of Karamit knives that I use as steak knives.

 

[Tez3]

I suspect that the OP has taken Marc MacYoung's comments out of context or hasn't included the full quote in an attempt to make it sound like he's saying something else. We have no way of knowing from the comments what sort of knife Marc was talking about and in what situation, as Tony said, it seemed as if he was talking about a knife used as a tool rather than a knife that was a weapon.
It's just random quotes, no indications of the subject and just parts ripped from what are obviously longer articles.

 

[lklawson]

I suspect that the OP has taken Marc MacYoung's comments out of context or hasn't included the full quote in an attempt to make it sound like he's saying something else. We have no way of knowing from the comments what sort of knife Marc was talking about and in what situation, as Tony said, it seemed as if he was talking about a knife used as a tool rather than a knife that was a weapon.
It's just random quotes, no indications of the subject and just parts ripped from what are obviously longer articles.

Yes, I agree. While I'm not an Acolyte of the Church of MacYoung, the guy is not an idiot and I'd be shocked to my core if he was actually intending his quote to be representative of Bowie Knifes & Cinquedeas.

...which is why we need to add a "WTF?!?" rating icon.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Danny T]

I suspect that the OP has taken Marc MacYoung's comments out of context or hasn't included the full quote in an attempt to make it sound like he's saying something else. We have no way of knowing from the comments what sort of knife Marc was talking about and in what situation, as Tony said, it seemed as if he was talking about a knife used as a tool rather than a knife that was a weapon.
It's just random quotes, no indications of the subject and just parts ripped from what are obviously longer articles.

He has.

The following is from MacYoung's site.
A Knife Is A TOOL!
Let's start with this important fact.


Tools do things your hand, fingers and teeth can't. You can't hammer a nail with your fist, you can't cut down a tree with your fingers you can't carve with your teeth. As such, tools allow you to do a variety of jobs and applications. The key word here is variety.


A weapon on the other hand is a modified tool. These modifications make it only good for one thing. In exchange for this specialization, it is useless as a tool. For example, a dagger is a double-edged blade that allows cutting in either direction. This modification removes your ability to put your thumb/finger on the back of the blade ... a critical component in tool use.


Can a tool be used as a weapon? Yes. But the point here is that it is ALWAYS an improvised weapon. As such, it will NEVER be as over-all effective at the task as an item specifically designed as a weapon. Can it still kill? Yes any tool can be abused in this manner. But the design of the tool is not for killing. It lacks the specific modifications necessary to make it a weapon.


Let's put this in plain English. Hanging words like tactical, combat ready, combative, commando, urban warrior or some macho and cool sounding name on a knife will only do two things:
1) Raise the price
2) Give the prosecution ammo against you because you were carrying
a 'fighting knife. (As in if you weren't planning to stab someone why were
you carrying such a scary and wicked knife?)


So the first standard for choosing a knife is know that you are buying a tool, NOT a weapon. 99.999% of what you are going to be using it for is as a tool. That should dictate your purchasing decision.

 

[Tez3]

Well that is at least something one can discuss but I don't think it advances understanding what the OP is trying to get at.
Btw I like RPG....rocket propelled grenades, beats knives, swords and idiots no problem