Hypothetical Situation Fun (15ft duel)
 

You're in a hallway of your home. It's 15 feet to your assailant. You both see each other at the same time and are both surprised. You have no idea what your assailant is carrying, only that he/she is skilled in its use and is about to attack. You can choose to have one portable weapon on you, but its in the safe position (holstered, no round in the chamber, etc). What would you choose?

At that distance I'd go with a light short sword, specifically a wakizashi. I can draw and strike in one motion while sprinting, and within 15 feet I think I could easily beat a firearm wielder to the mark. Plus being in my home I'd be hesitant to use a firearm with my family around.

Taser or pump shotgun, depending on your rather vague definition of 'safe position'.

I'd prefer to have a tonfa.

Less messy, and they're good in close and tight quarters.

Do you have room to back up? If so, I think a pistol would be my best bet, since I don't have any experience with melee weapons. If he has a melee weapon, I'm fucked unless I have a firearm, in which case it's a tossup. If he has a firearm, it's a tossup. It's hard to account for the surprise factor.

Depending on its size, a sanjiegun might be perfect. It's like a nunchuku, but with 3 sections, so it could bouce of the walls easily and strike again.

I guess a taser would be best. I'm not particularly skilled with projectile weapons, and I don't want to take a sword to a gun fight. I have to hope I can draw and fire with accuracy faster than my adversary, which to be honest isn't something I'm very confident in.

Can my weapon be full ballistic gear?

If the person is wielding a firearm and is truly as "skilled" as you've described, then I will be long dead before I can rack a slide, pump a shotgun, pull a charging handle or close a bolt on a hunting rifle. Thereby the only sensible firearm to 'defend myself' with would be a revolver, because they're in 'safe' mode with the cylinder locked in place. Sure, it'd be double action but it's be damned faster than anything else.

If they have a melee weapon, even a revolver might not be enough. Any skilled martial artist could close the 15 foot window in 1-2 seconds, enough time for one, maybe two shots. That's no guarantee that the rounds would have the stopping power necessary.

All things above considered, I'd just run away.

Lob a grenade. GTFO! :lol:

Net gun... Rob and Big style...

Uzi sound good?

shotgun, easy. i have no pump, so my semi auto, full choke. if its in a hallway, i should only need one shot, so im not concerned about a jam.

if im investigating a strange noise then in already loaded and ready to go.

point, click, done.

If its a melee weapon, then a boar spear- easy to use and easy to put into action

for a projectile weapon, then my maverick 88 pistol grip pump- I keep it for just that occasion.....

Hey... how much are clothes in the Matrix?

Hah, some good responses here. I'll clarify a few things. This is just like your home, except with a 15 foot hallway if you don't have one. So you can run away or move away but you'll be turning a corner and leaving possible family to be harmed or valuables to be lost. If you live alone I guess it's up to you on whether you want to include an innocent in your situation but it's a lot more boring if there isn't one :)

The "safe position" is purposefully vague because I can't account for all weapon types. The point is you don't have it at the ready, leveled and aimed or unsheathed or whatever. Also, if I wasn't clear, the assailant is just as surprised, and has the same rules as you. So timing is equal. And by "skilled" I mean he knows how to use his weapon. Not that he's an expert marksman or swordsman or anything.

The 15 foot mark is supposedly the distance most can cover before most people could get a shot off with most firearms.

The main problem I see with a taser is you only get one shot. You miss and you're dead.

Tonfa isn't a bad idea if you really do know how to use it, but with a blunt weapon you better get a *good* shot in fast or it won't do much.

How many shots, exactly, do you expect to get off with any other ranged weapon at a 15 foot?

Say you have a taser and I have a glock. We both miss the first round. You have no shots left. I have at least 6. I can now take my time in aiming and won't miss the 2nd time.

Remember, you don't know what weapon your assailant has, only that he is skilled in its use. Could be a knife, could be an ak47.

The point in this hypothetical experiment is to decide what weapon you'd use against an unknown assailant when you're both on even footing. The weapon you choose should be versatile in your use, accurate, fast, reliable, and safe. And have more than one shot. But that's just my personal opinion. :)

Also my opinion, but I believe this is as close to realistic a situation as one can get when thinking of reasons for owning weapons for the majority of us. Sure some people sleep with a loaded pistol under their pillow but most of us have families and have to keep them out of the reach of children, and can't shoot or attack a shadowy figure (immediately) in our house because it could be a kid's friend sneaking in, or whatever. Hence the even footing rules I put in.

((I don't mean for this to get into a gun safety debate here. Just wanted to explain my reasoning. Let's try to keep it to the hypothetical situation))

True.dat

It seems to me that you are probably looking at a zero sum game. Assuming your assailant is skilled in the use of his weapon of choice, he will likely kill you even if you manage to mortally wound him. The choice becomes one of whether you want to seek a long shot victory (i.e. instant incapacitation before he can get you), or ensure that he dies regardless of what happens to you.

If he has a sword and knows how to use it, the odds are he is going to kill you if he is able to close the distance, especially if you have a firearm. However, while a firearm gives you a decent chance of instant incapacitaion (provided you know what you are doing) it is not at all guaranteed, and you will have less time than most people think to employ it. If you choose a sword, even if you are very good with one, you will probably both die in the melee since you are presumably fighting until one is dead. Most mortal wounds don't kill instantly. European duels were not typically deadly since combat stopped after honor was upheld (after the first scratch), but the japanese believed in a rule of thirds: A third of the time your opponent would win, a third of the time you would, and a third of the time you would both die. That gives you a 1/3 chance of survival, assuming you are an expert swordsman.

If he has a firearm and is competent, he will shoot you several times before you close the distance to him (if you have a sword) but will be unable to prevent you from hacking him to pieces before you die. Of course, if he hits you in the head, pelvis, or spine you will be unable to close and will lose. Even if you get him you will probably die from your wounds. If you both choose firearms, you have a chance.

Shotgun.

No comment on your first two paragraphs, but to say in general good point about both possibly dieing.

I strongly disagree with the third though. I (and quite a few people I'm sure) can close 15 ft before anyone but an expert trick shooter/fast drawer (or whatever you call them) could shoot me. Worse case scenario, he'd get off one wild shot that probably wouldn't hit me. I think you might be overestimating how far 15 feet is.

I'm not just assuming either, I've tried this experiment with friends (sans lethality of course).

Why are we assuming weapon in holster? Who sticks a gun in their holster and goes out investigating bumps in the night? Are we assuming sword in sheath also? Knife folded in pocket? Those take as long or longer than a holster.

Yes, as I already said. Everything is sheathed, holstered, etc. And no, it's not a real situation, that's why I called it hypothetical. In my opinion it's as fair as I can make it. I don't really feel like going over how all the variables translate in my head. This is just for fun. And no, the majority of sheathed blades (to the equivalent holster) will draw and function much faster than a pistol, I promise.

I wasn't speaking about the average person, but about people who are competent with whatever weapon they choose. Somone who spends a lot of time behind a gun will be much quicker than your average joe or police officer.

I can guarantee that I will be able to shoot you several times before you close the distance. However, I will also stipulate that I will probably not be able to stop you from killing me. To draw and fire the first shot should take less than a second, even for a concealment holster (though police are using monstrosities now designed to retain a weapon at all costs which hinder their ability to deploy a handgun). At fifteen feet you don't even need to develop a good sight picture but can simply start shooting while you are still railing your pistol out. This isn't a scenario where you are walking along unsuspecting and all of a sudden you have to identify a threat, decide you need to shoot it, drop whatever is in your hands, pull your jacket back, and then draw.

The turing drill (sp?) which is famous for demonstrating how quickly an assailant with a knife can close distance is where the 21 ft. rule comes from for police officers. For those that don't know, the drill is for an 'armed' assailant to rush the defender while he tries to draw and employ his weapon without the distance being closed. It is hard, and to be done right the defender needs to retreat in order to create as much time as possible. But this drill is designed partly to allow a police officer or whatnot to stop an attacker without ever being hurt, and mostly to teach how important distance is. I never said you wouldn't get hurt or killed, only that if you knew what you were doing you could put a few rounds into the aggressor first. Oh, and the bad guy gets to start running before the officer can draw.

Safe carry for a pistol is typically loaded with a round in the chamber but the safety on (if it has one) or decocked and in a holster. The holster doesn't need to have a dozen retention devices and if I knew I was about to be fighting for my life (and I decided not to draw ahead of time) I would probably choose a fairly fast Kydex holster of some kind. There would be no mucking about pulling clothes out of the way, fumbling with the slide to load a round, getting a sight picture, or even trying to identify the threat (because under your scenario it is a known threat). You would only have to draw and fire, possibly even keeping the gun tucked up in retention and never even attempting to extend your arms.

Even if you had a sword, it would be in a sheath which would require several seperate motions before you could employ it, and a much longer 'draw' stroke than with a pistol. You would still have to grab both the sword and scabbord, draw the sword (which puts you in a horrible position for either defense or offense as your arm is extended out away from you and the tip is pointing back towards you), pull your arm back and bring the sword into position, and then swing/stab as necessary. It wouldn't be any faster than a pistol to deploy. Of course you could say that you would be holding it, but then I can safely hold a pistol. If you are slow on the draw and have not completely removed the sword before the distance is closed, it will become very difficult to use it while someone with a pistol could still just point and shoot (shorter swords excepted).

So, I did some testing, since I'm a HUGE dork. I'm not a big enough dork to upload the audio file anywhere, but I used garage band to time myself with the following weapons:
Sword
Knife
Shotgun
Taser
Pistol

Here's my results:

Knife, draw, close 15 feet and stab once--2 seconds
Knife, draw, close 15 feet and stab three times--3 seconds
Sword, draw and run through (or decapitate, same times)--2 seconds

So that gives us 2 seconds to work with on a melee weapon. Let's see what we can do with projectiles. I used nerf guns to ensure I had to be accurate and not just pull the trigger.

Taser, very careful aim from holster--1.5 seconds
Taser in hand, very careful aim--1 second
Pistol in a holster--1 second
Pistol in a holster, mozambique drill--2 seconds
Pump shotgun, not chambered, one shot--1 second
Pump shotgun, not chambered, 3 shots--2 seconds.

Looks like I was right with my first post--the shotgun and the taser both stand a good chance of disabling in 1 second (I wouldn't guaruntee a disabling shot with one pistol round) whereas melee weapons are taking 2. Also, times back on target may be a bit optimistic for followup shots from pistol and handgun, but the first shot times shouldn't change much.

Good stuff! Especially twistedmosaic! This is the kind of discussion I was hoping to generate.

Greg700, I still maintain that *I* at least could close the distance in this situation with at worst one shot getting off before I disabled him. Several factors I'm assuming here that you may not be
-by safe position the firearm at least has the safety on and probably doesn't have one in the chamber
-or if it's a revolver it's stuffed down his pants or some such
-I'm not using official jargon here, it's great that you know it, but by safe position and whatnot I don't necessarily mean safe carry for a pistol.
(again as I tried to state, I get that a prepared expert will have the advantage)
-that the assailant is *not* an expert
-that he can't back up as it's in a 15ft hallway
-that its 15ft and not 21ft
-I suppose I'm also thinking of it somewhere between an identified threat and surprise but I can see how you'd read it that way
-etc
And I know the motion it takes to draw a sword and strike, I've had some (I'm not pretending to be an expert) training. And while it's not like in anime, one can still do plenty of disabling damage on the first stroke. I can and have drawn and attacked while sprinting. The main problem is there's very little power (compared to a full stroke). But the sword I'd be using would be plenty sharp enough to do enough distracting damage on the first stroke on an unarmored assailant. Again, I'll restate, drawing a sword is much faster than you'd think so long as you're fast and have had some training.

Edit: I just timed myself (several times to make sure) and it takes me 1 second exactly (like +/- 0.01) to cover 15ft and strike. And that's without adrenaline or being warmed up.

Edit again: Just to be totally accurate, blade length was 13 inches.

I understood that you couldn't back up, and that the distance was only 15ft. I was using that drill as a similar example and then trying to illustrate how your scenario was different enough to allow for different results.

Removing the safety takes no time at all and is done as part of the draw (not the part where the weapon clears the holster, but as you tilt the barrel up and rail out), though I will agree that if chambering a round were required, it would not go so well.

I will give you that drawing a sword would be much faster than I would think in the hands of someone who is competent, but so is a pistol.

How about this line of thinking: If you are able to close the distance that quickly, then whatever happens is likely to happen within arms reach. If we are that close, I would rather have either a knife or a pistol over a sword as the sword could very easily get tied up that close (though it would certainly do damage).

Shrug you may be right about pistol draw. I don't have much experience in drawing one, just going off of what I've seen.

I didn't mean for this "duel" to be between TFPers. I was trying to get at what you'd want if you didn't know what the other person was carrying.

A sword would get tied up in a hallway yes, but not a 13 inch short sword.

A .45 six shooter....It'd be all duel-ly, and not a bad weapon anyway.

I would have to go with some sort of throwing knife possibly. It gives you a projectile, however if the assailant attempts to close the distance you also have a fairly adequate melee weapon.