Handgun Disarms - A Reality Check

I think you are overthinking it, and yet still ignore context. If said guy isn't dressed as a medieval knight with armour, shield, swords and all of that, and goes against you with his bare hands or just a metal rod, then beating him to death with a shovel is a valid tactic. Against a knife it's questionable, but I'd say you still stand a good enough chance if it's an actual life-or-death fight. But how'd you end up in either of these situations with an entrenching tool? It's only realistic if you are a soldier in a trench or a building, and even then you might be better off with just surrendering if you have to rely on a shovel because you ran out of ammo. But there is a miniscule chance that beating an enemy to death with a fucking shovel is indeed the best possible action, and explaining to a grunt how to do it only takes a few minutes at best, and so they should be told about it.

Attached: war_never_changes.jpg (1280x738, 264.7K)

When I was much fitter, I had a situation where there was a 3 on 1.

They were little nigglets that just wanted to show how tough they were and probably would've killed me.

Because I was fit and knew what to do and the location (a very thin alleyway). I had the advantage.

Skill will always put you a cut above an untrained opponent, no matter what weapon they have.

That said, when skill is equal or an opponent is more skilled than you even though you always fight as if the opponent is more proficient than you, underestimation puts you at death's door you will be killed, but you didn't just give them your life, they had to fight, even a little, for it.

Attached: ooga booga booga.png (2156x842, 1.92M)

I'm more of a "fight to the death with whatever you've got available" mentality as well. I'm saying that its the general attitude that's wrong, not so much that you should just give up and die, or that if all you have is a shovel or a stick you can't fight and win. Its the complaint that the attitude that the underdog or the "one cool trick" is superior or has the advantage in a dangerous situation when it is actually in the disadvantage.

Skill always wins, yes, I agree. Up until the point of the gun which equalized disphit nobodies with soldiers and warriors to at least some extent. Even a loser can get lucky with a gun, and not everybody makes stupid mistakes when it counts. As I stated, the disarm might be your only choice, just like duck and cover, you have to use it, but the attitude that you have the advantage is dangerous to believe.

In the end, avoiding a situation where someone has a gun in your ribs is always the most important thing. Choosing tactics, choosing modes and means to avoid having the drop on you is the most important consideration. Having good tactics and skills is knowing the advantage and disadvantages of them, and knowing that a desperate last effort is such a poor thing to HAVE to use that you should focus on avoiding it in the first place.

Getting out of a mess comes second to not getting into a mess. Knowing the dangers of a handgun disarm better reinforces the idea that you need to keep people from getting the drop on you, and getting a gun in your ribs, to begin with.

Again, with shovels, it comes back purely to Johnny Autist and his notion that goofy and unusual weapons are actually better than real and effective weapons. Retards drool over chainsaw bayonets, shovels, air powered nail guns, ect., and underdog focused people tend to think that not only does an improvised weapon give you at least something to fight with, they start getting retarded enough to think they are superior.

Killing a man with a spoon is great work. it also reminds you to keep a knife handy. Using what you have around you to win a battle is great. The aftermath is often a lesson in what to carry next time, what works best.

As for Trinidad, I agree 100%. But the point I'm getting at, the whole point of my long winded novellas in this thread, is that agreement on underestimation. Believing too much in your ability to fight a tank, or take on a superior enemy, or believing too much in a desperate last ditch tactic may help you overcome fear and fight the best you can, or it can help you underestimate the dangers and fight the wrong way.

Just sayin.

Again, my problem is that you dare to put shovels into the same category as chainsaw bayonets. They are just as effective as an axe, and most axes are tools first and foremost, yet you can kill with them just fine if you have to. They themselves aren't memeweapons, they are just not something non-autistic civilians would carry with themselves on a daily basis.

Attached: shovel_used_like_an_axe.jpg (881x679 31.18 KB, 143.82K)

If the niggers want you dead then why are you living in Tobago?

It has been used successfully, yes it is in a real improvised weapon spot over chainsaw bayonets. It reaches high levels of autism when people actually think they are a vastly superior weapon over the rifle and bayonet, when people think they are a trump card of some sort over real hand to hand weapons.

Its a second choice for hand to hand, not a first. When people start thinking that improvised weapons are superior to purpose built they wander into autismo land. It works, but there are better weapons, and it certainly isn't the best choice.

you misunderstand, this was just a few niglets trying to act tough, doesn't mean the whole place wants me dead, just some bad elements.

What is "Propaganda to make the population believe that the 'war' is going well".

Just fucking teleport behind the guy.

why

do

you

type

like

this

faggot?

Dude they were COMFIRMED kills, they comfirmed them, dont ask me how, but dude what are you a fucking muslim shut up we have to get the terrorists.

Wars make refugees suck the white people's tits for free milks.

Cause of Reddit. In Reddit you have to put enter space twice to
make it look like this.

he doesnt

dude what are you a MUSLIM goddamn MAGA eyou fucking antisemite FUCK OFF

THEY ERE COMFIRMED KILLS, we must fight terrorism
Do you want another paris? In niche, wiht the truck

COMFIRMED KILLS
AMERICA IS GOOD
KRIS KYLE HAD 300 COMFIRMED KILLS A TURE PATRIOT
G-D BLESS AMERIGA

I had another closer look at the footage, and it looks like when he moved his body out of the line of fire before attempting to take control of the weapon, the shot missed him. When he was 'shot' it looks like he tried reaching for the weapon before he attempted to move out of the fire line. Which left the body exposed when reaching for the weapon and the shot broke.

That's an entrenching tool, you mong!

That terminology is unacceptably imprecise!

That guy in the video is quite slow, almost purposely so. I've actually done tests like that myself with my brother and his nerf guns, The only time he would pull the trigger before I got it off line were when he shot before I even moved.
There have been tests like the one in the video done with karateka and again, they pretty much always succeed in disarming. Many disarming motions are the same as the motions to counter a punch, just altered slightly.

I also noticed that.

Damn right it is, it's far more like a spade than a shovel.

In the age of automatic guns its actually a much better weapon than rifle+bayonet, especially since the bayonet is not really for men vs. men fights but for men vs. cavalry.
When guns were longer and cavalry was a real threat for infantry it was a really good weapon, but with the way guns are today they are just terrible.
Additionally "improvised" weapons can be much more useful than purposely carried hand to hand weapons as the Fallschirmjägers in WW2 had proven they they used their E-Tools to devastate the British Gurkha that where armed with Kukris.
And in many of these cases the E-tool wasn't a weapon of desperation, as the Fallschirmjägers had the option to take other weapons with them but chose not to do it, because they were confident with what they already carried.

Better hope he doesn't have a revolver, huh?

This, but if you look at archives it's always been done.

This, but it not only depends on who you're up against (in which case you might have the advantage), but also I have not seen anyone say that about entrenching tools. Maybe disarming attackers, but not entrenching tools.

I haven't seen them around lately but there were a few posters on Zig Forums who used to insist that E-tools were all troops needed as a melee weapon. Not sure whether they were serious or merely pretending, however.

Only thing I have against E-tools is no handguard, but considering how short it is, maybe it is not necessary.

I would still recommend a smatchet or kukri, but maybe the germans and ruskies really love haxing axes.

It's pretty rare you're ever going to be held at gunpoint that close, though. Most of these aren't very useful in the real world.

I can't say for certain, but a more reasonable explanation would be

Polearms for cavalry only? I wholeheartedly disagree. The primary weapon of the Germanic warrior throughout most of history? Even against other infantry? The spear. From the shieldwall of the Viking and old Gothic warriors, to the lance of the knight to the spear and eventually pike of the later infantry, swords and short arms were the secondary weapon of the fighter and not his primary, save for the doppelsoldners, the rifle and bayonet wasn't simply good against cavalry they were the best means to fight infantry in old combat as well. Sure, trench raiding parties fighting enemies after ambushing them at close range in cramped quarters of trench rooms and barracks might have preferred the shovel or the club, but the fighter out in the open had the advantage in the rifle/bayonet against other infantry. Look at Korea and the human wave charges, you were better off with your own rifle/bayonet than anything else against the red horde with their own rifles/bayonets.

Says it well. They carried what they already had and focused on the primary fighting of the new war, instead of the melee that was less likely. It wasn't a "let's pick the best melee weapon" choice it was "let's just take what we got and improvise".

I think too many movies have spoiled people, they see people almost always fighting with swords or other one handed weapons and watch as they smash them together to create the 'duel" effect, even as retarded as watching clips where two guys have shields and fight each other and DON'T USE THE SHIELDS and proceed to smash their swords against each other.

It gives bad impressions, but it really undermines the reality that poleamrs were important and were the primary and effective arm of the solider forever. They've spent time to make bayonets and spears look weak when this is exactly that opposite of the truth. Its more romantic to watch people expose themselves and smash their weapons against each other intead of showing careful, slow, intelligent fighting with spears, shields.

Even when Adolphus Gustavus defeated the tercios with lighter, quicker infantry, they didn't simply march in with swords, but still had their own shortened pikes to fight the huge 16 foot pikes of the slow formations. They didn't march in with daggers and clubs to be fast and light.

You see autists and the like who think that really short nub knives are the best "so light and quick" same thing with all stub short little weapons, they forget that the long zweihanders weren't slow and stupid, but very fast and dangerous. They forget that the spear is a fast weapon, powerful, and capable of skill and grace.

I suppose the big difference comes down to wither you are trying to ambush someone in a tiny enclosed space or fighting in the open ground. Anywhere you can maneauver the long arm it is superior to the tool or short weapon.

Then you disagree with reality, while the bayonet can be used against infantry, its intended use is against cavalry.
The bayonet replaced the pike men, the phalanx of the renaissance when people learned that with the right tactics you don't need a full fledged polearm to ward off cavalry.
We don't talk about spears, we talk about bayonets and while they can be used similar to a spear, compared to a spear they are shit.
Since the bayonet sits on the gun with a mechanism or just through pressure, its point has a weakness that doesn't exist on a real spear. Its easy to lose your bayonet compared to a real spearhead.
Also compared to a spear its really unbalanced, the parts of the gun are in the way of holding the shaft, they are too short, too heavy and they are made of the wrong type of wood.
And that is only for the really old long rifles, modern rifles made of plastic, metal, with free floating barrels and shit design like bullpump are on an even more deeper level of awfulness.
You claim that the E-tool/Shovel for fighting is a "desperate makeshift move", yet you lack the knowledge to understand that this is true too for the bayonet compared to a real polearm.
The bayonet is not a great close combat weapon, its a tool which effectiveness heavily depends on being used with the right tactics in the right moment and this is why other tools are good enough to deal with it.
Germanic warriors would laugh at the bayonet if it wouldn't sit on a functioning rifle and the Wehrmacht stopped training with the bayonet, because it was already obsolete at the start of WW1 and was primarily used as a sign of rank.
To quote WW1 General of the Infantry Hermann Geyer in his handbook Der Angriff im Stellungskrieg: "The close combat is decided with the firearm."(„Der Nahkampf wird mit der Schusswaffe entschieden.“)
Human wave charges only work if the enemy doesn't have enough fire power.

I'd say it's more of a trowel.

Is this standing ovation for spear needed in every threads about melee weapon?

Its a good weapon that has been with humanity for a long time.

Same with sword, and axe.

Yet nobody gives them standing ovation in every melee weapon thread.

Sword and Axe lose against the Spear and the Spear has been with humanity since before the Stone Age, the Axe only since the Stone Age and the Sword only since the Bronze Age.

Good point and I agree, but with a little exception. You see, the bayonet had been taught till long after the 2nd world war. Sure, it was not used all the time, but in Nahkampf it was your best friend, along with a spade and hand grenades, the same as in WWI. A rifle is indeed long and unwieldy and it requires time to reload it. Against a trained swordsman in close quarters it would have trouble.

The Sino-Japanese war was a good example, in a very tight space (buildings, trenches) even a dadao would fuck you up before you could aim with your bolt action rifle. See? First move the barrel aside, then finish. Get a troop of crazy fuckers armed with these into a narrow alley and watch them chop stuff.

Of course in this example we're not considering SMGs, but then again they weren't many in the IJA at that time.

Also on the topic of melee weapons in general, it's also a matter of what you're trained to fight with and where you are. A spear operates differently than a rapier, a Zweihander, sabre, cutlass, trench knife, etc. There is no universal melee weapon, it's always a compromise. If you don't know how to use a weapon in a fight, it won't help you much, unless it's something simple like a spear, club or dagger.

Also please let me bash on this one as well:

Now that's just bullshit. Going with a bayonet against many bayonets (even one after another) means certain death. No matter how good and big you are, you can only withstand 2-3 exchanges in real combat and then you lose. If an opponent even gets within striking distance without being hit, you have already lost and will likely get wounded or killed. This is how a real duel works, coming from a HEMA practitioner.

The spear is easy to use, easy to make and intuitive. The sword or sabre requires a lot of training to be used effectively, but when you know what you're doing, it becomes a quick, nimble and extremely deadly weapon to fight in all directions with many opponents. A spear is deadly as well, but in a duel it's not a matter of the weapon, but the wielder's skill, combat-brain and luck. And a modern axe is a tool, not a weapon.

For those who think that a criminal with a gun won't get that close to you: hooktube.com/watch?v=hIhlAyKK8Mw

Attached: bayonets.webm (480x360, 482.75K)

The Korea deal wasn't a duel, it was closer to formation fighting. When the red horde would make it to the allied lines, the troops woudln't be so spread out that you were dueling with one man, then another, and another, but rather, hopefully, in your own line and formation to greet the enemy.

This is the other advantage spears have, and always have had, in formation they are superior in set piece combat. One man doesn't simply fight with spears, the whole line, wall, block, tercio, square, phalanx or formation does, with other men in the line using their polearms to reach out and help with enemies who try to dribble in against the formation. The unwieldy pike would only work at its best when other pikemen with their big ol stabbers could reach over and make the proposition of closing in to short range a very dangerous task indeed.

I can't even imagine how deluded someone should be to bring pointed stick against hordes armed by PPSh.

Do you have sources on that Korean thing? I mean I may be fixated on my own modest experience in fighting, but your story has holes.
First, a bayonetted rifle is not a polearm, it's an improvised weapon at best, take this fellow's vid as a reference. It's not a spear and will never be one.
Second, even in formation, one quickly gets tired when fighting and with such an unwieldy weapon. When you get tired, you get hit. When you get hit, you die.
Third, the guys did not have armor like in the old ages, so all hits are wounding. With an underarmor, a helmet and a breast plate one could survive a lot more in the field than in your trusty uniform.
Last but not least, a line of GIs with bayonets is not line infantry, nor a phalanx. It's an improvised formation at best. The guys weren't even trained to do that in the late 40s!

I may have a wrong perspective, but formation fighting with bayonets in the Korean war seem like a myth.

wat? I heard that's a good way to lose a chunk of your hand or a finger.

He's using his own body to move, which is slow as fuck, rather than relying on gravity and falling to the (in those instances his left) left and down while pushing the gun up and right.
Keeping your legs firmly under you will always mean a movement slower than what gravity could force on you through free falling.

Most of the time the chinks would be out of ammo by the time they got to the top of the hill or only were equipped with grenades. Look at some of the MoH recipients of Korea, some guys were found with hundreds of dead chinks around them.

You are late 50 years with such sort of propaganda, grandpa.