A further discussion of a gun is not as good as a knife within seven steps
In fact, this issue has been said very clearly before, but I just brushed a video of a well-known Canadian firearms blogger on the Internet. The blogger took out a single-action wheel and a modern automatic rifle as the basis for his fast and stable gun within seven steps.
This is a bit excessive, you can't play randomly, this sub has traveled through hundreds of years, take the essence of human firearms for a hundred years to deal with short knives, this is a bit unfair. Therefore, we would like to remind him once: these words have restrictions and context, and it depends on what knife and gun and what time.
。。。。。。
Unexpectedly, this person who was not inferior to me inexplicably said that I was raising the bar, and even said what nonsense about signing a life and death document to duel - this is a bit excessive.
First of all, this kind of unworkable invitation to duel is originally a kind of sophistry. It's like if you eat a rotten egg, people say you raise the bar, have the ability to your next non-smelly ah? You're going to sign the paperwork of life and death and I'm going to lay eggs —that's ridiculous, right? If I want to discuss eggs, do I have to lay the eggs myself? Why do you want to go and lay eggs with you? Besides, can saying these useless words mask your weakness? What is a life-and-death duel for a different point of view? Are you pure childish and have not grown up or have you been absent from your life?
So, given that the other party is the first to speak inferiorly, the point of view is wrong, and the speech is not scored, this matter has to be torn apart again.
First of all, let it be clear that the context of this sentence is a summary of the actual combat experience of the trenches of the First World War.
Imagine you were holding a World War I pistol, and only the holster of the time, encountering regular enemy soldiers in the trenches. The bolt-action rifle in his hand had just failed to load, and he directly pounced on it with his bayonet. This situation is not a small probability event, right? So at this time, who has confidence that they will survive?
Therefore, after the death of countless people, the soldiers summed up the experience: within seven steps, this pistol was really inferior to the other side's bayonet.
。。。。
Of course, taking a step back, he was a North American firearms blogger, with years of melee shooting experience and thousands of rounds of live-fire training, which would definitely give him a little chance of survival. But the big-headed soldiers who only fired dozens of bullets in the First World War, did they have such experience? Do they have a single-action revolver in your hand, or an assault rifle? Don't you say you can't "tilt the ratio"? So you have gone through hundreds of years to ignore the comparison of training conditions without skewing? That's a bit too double-standard.
I'm sorry, the millions of regular troops in the trenches at that time really didn't have your conditions, and people didn't have your time machine. But no one is stupid, they don't have to cross over to you to borrow a gun, and when they know that the pistol in the trench can't deal with the bayonet of a full-length rifle, they are specially equipped with shotguns and submachine guns.
So, to prove that "a gun is not as good as a knife within seven steps" is wrong, you don't have to hold a cowboy single-action wheel and a modern automatic rifle. Wouldn't it be more perfect to take out the submachine guns and trench trolls of the First World War directly, which are not crossed, and can also deal with bayonets?
。。。。。。。
To put it bluntly, this blogger is a sophist. As long as all the restrictions are removed, it is naturally a sure win. Don't say that the knife is not as good as the gun, you have removed the restrictions, and it is okay to say that the atomic bomb is not as good as the gun. Without saying what knife, what gun and what time, you can naturally extend at will to prove that others are wrong.
。。。。。
Let us return to the main topic and repeat my point: at the level of equipment in the trenches of World War I, the pistols of that time— let alone the German Ruger, the American M1911, were all at a loss when they encountered the enemy's bayonet-mounted full-length rifle, or even died. This is not a question of what is said in the video about the speed of loading, but out of human instinct.
Most people (not excluding special cases) can't pull out their pistols in the face of the dangling stabs that come over! Even if the gun was in his hand, he wouldn't have time to load it! Even if he holds a loaded pistol, many times he can't hit it! And even if you hit it, you don't delay the bayonet in your chest! This is still the regular army, most ordinary people in the face of the snow bright gun stabbing, simply kneeling, do not dare to pull out the gun to resist.
This is an ironclad fact that cannot be denied by a civilian person a hundred years later, armed with a modern assault rifle. Take an automatic rifle against a short knife? Why don't you go straight to Minigang?
As for the example of what a cowboy single-action revolver is, it is even more of a joke. That thing is very dangerous, requiring a lot of live-fire training and a long time to use well. Is it possible to train hundreds of cowboys, is it possible to train hundreds of thousands of soldiers? And take a single-action wheel to the battlefield and roll in the muddy trenches? You're so smart! The United States has a single-action revolver, but why did hundreds of thousands of American troops in World War I not expect to equip that? Do you know why?
To summarize:
The blogger may be proud to be able to play with guns in a foreign country, and for no reason there is an inexplicable sense of superiority. Unfortunately, no one understands everything. For now, at least he had no understanding of why the Americans in the trenches of World War I used sprays and submachine guns, rather than directly distributing M1911 pistols to soldiers on a large scale.
@lonely traveler
