Striking with Bodyweight

Status
Not open for further replies.

strambo

Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2004
Messages
3,961
Location
Oregon
Whenever you strike, it is important that you get all of your weight into it. This makes strength a lot less of a factor. If you are targeting a vulnerable area of their anatomy and driving all of your weight through it, that gives you the best chance of causing an injury, even if you are a 120lb female.

I'm posting a short excerpt from a training course where I demonstrate this principle. The proper strike is at the very end of the clip (the initial one has more distance so they can see what I'm doing better). Note the starting and finishing positions of the dummy and myself (the other dummy :rofl: ). See how I finish standing where they were with my center of mass totally displacing them? All my weight was focused on the handgun muzzle and went into their throat. Devastating (and lethal) strike, no matter what you weigh or how strong you are.



Whenever I watch someone strike, I always take note of where their CG is in relation to a marker in the background to see if they truly step in and get a good weight transfer. 90%+ of the time, they lean in and maybe take a half step, but they do not drive in and get all of their weight in the strike.

This is how a much weaker person can realistically injure a much stronger attacker. Pit your body weight against something weak on them. Eyes, throat, groin, knees, ankles etc. and so on. Nobody can take a 135lb barbell thrown on their knee. So, they cant take a proper weighted heel-stomp through the knee either by a 135lb person driving all the way through...same physics.
 
I get what you're saying, but it's supposed to be a pistol punch, not jousting. You inflict the damage you need without over committing. A quick "punch" will allow a second punch if you miss...pushing-through on a round soft neck, just invites the bad guy to bob & weave, throw a front snap kick or throw an arm across (wax on/wax off) and leave you charging into fists.

You strike when your slide locks back and you still need to inflict serious physical injury. The small surface area of the muzzle makes it easier to send into an eye socket and requires less force to inflict damage (force over area).

You force the barrel into eyes when feasible, mouth or face when you have a straight shot. I'd go for a pistol punch under the chin (upward angle) if it was all I had.

A shot to the eyes or mouth is going to take its toll...I'm not really sure if the neck punch is going to have the same immediate effect. A guy shot through the heart can fight for a period, a person with a trachea injury can as well, being blinded will cause instant results.

You don't strike with a loaded gun, too easy to get caught in a disarm or cause a stoppage. We're not serving a search warrant with an AR.

-never "pistol whip" or "side smack" with a glock...aside from the chances of an AD, the magwell can get torqued and eject the mag. (think parallelogram)

Strike & inflict damage
follow-up with a knee to a hunched over head or side-kick to the knee
back up asap and now you bought yourself time to reload
 
Last edited:
Whenever you strike, it is important that you get all of your weight into it. This makes strength a lot less of a factor. If you are targeting a vulnerable area of their anatomy and driving all of your weight through it, that gives you the best chance of causing an injury, even if you are a 120lb female.

I'm posting a short excerpt from a training course where I demonstrate this principle. The proper strike is at the very end of the clip (the initial one has more distance so they can see what I'm doing better). Note the starting and finishing positions of the dummy and myself (the other dummy :rofl: ). See how I finish standing where they were with my center of mass totally displacing them? All my weight was focused on the handgun muzzle and went into their throat. Devastating (and lethal) strike, no matter what you weigh or how strong you are.



Whenever I watch someone strike, I always take note of where their CG is in relation to a marker in the background to see if they truly step in and get a good weight transfer. 90%+ of the time, they lean in and maybe take a half step, but they do not drive in and get all of their weight in the strike.

This is how a much weaker person can realistically injure a much stronger attacker. Pit your body weight against something weak on them. Eyes, throat, groin, knees, ankles etc. and so on. Nobody can take a 135lb barbell thrown on their knee. So, they cant take a proper weighted heel-stomp through the knee either by a 135lb person driving all the way through...same physics.

If a picture is worth 1000 words, how much more so a video!

Thanks for this post. :)
 
Sorry folks but do you really think you can hit someones Adam's apple with the muzzle of your gun while they are alert and watching you?

And do you really think a semi-automatic won't have the slide run backwards if you use it to strike like that?

I feel you are just asking for the other guy to grapple with you for the gun.

I suggest you just shoot 'em with your hogleg as it is still deadly force to strike them with the gun.

If you want to use a firearm as a blunt instrument I suggest you have a rifle with a bayonet. Works much better.

Deaf
 
Sorry folks but do you really think you can hit someones Adam's apple with the muzzle of your gun while they are alert and watching you?
Sure, why not? It works just as well as anything else...it isn't like we're squaring up in the Octagon..this is in the middle of a fluid and dynamic violent and chaotic conflict.

And do you really think a semi-automatic won't have the slide run backwards if you use it to strike like that?

Sure, about .25" until the barrel makes contact...so?

I feel you are just asking for the other guy to grapple with you for the gun.
I don't give a single nanosecond of thought as to what they are going to do. They can grapple for my inanimate object all they want while I focus 100% on tearing them apart. Besides, nobody is "grappling" with a crushed throat after being taken off their feet and then starting to asphyxiate.

I suggest you just shoot 'em with your hogleg as it is still deadly force to strike them with the gun.
I would if it were an option, it isn't always an option (too close, jam, out of ammo, etc).

If you want to use a firearm as a blunt instrument I suggest you have a rifle with a bayonet. Works much better.

Deaf
I'm well versed in the use of a rifle and bayonet...I don't seem to have one with me too often though. ;)
 
Pistol punch = last resort with an empty pistol

I don't post here much any more, but peek to glean some good stuff on occasion and maybe offer up an opinion. I'm not claiming anything, but my opinion is based on a couple of formal courses, police work and just plain intuition.

I'm all for training-up a bunch of broad moves to fill the mental toolbox, but you gotta rank them in order of good to bad and explain the risks vs rewards.

Don't use a deadly force weapon in a capacity that is less deadly; expecting it to be deadly lol....If you have a loaded gun and need deadly force applied, fire the gun. Don't close the distance and use a gun as a contact weapon if it's still loaded. There's too much risk of disarm/malfunction versus the assumption that you will score a direct hit with a pistol punch.

The only time you use an "object" as a contact weapon is when it's just an object...a piece of plastic/steel that can ONLY serve as a club. For instance: If you turn a corner and a guy is standing there with a knife/club and you have an empty pistol and expect to be stabbed or clubbed if you try to turn and retreat, you strike and try to buy time to retreat. For a street cop, the assumption is that a reload or transition to a different weapon on the belt will take too long.

During long gun training & warrant service, you might get into a situation where a "maybe" bad guy (unarmed tough guy or someone deciding fight or flight) steps up. In that case, the tactical issues with a 3 foot weapon at double arm distance make a quick muzzle punch to the chest more justifiable...enough to either send someone back into the couch or realize that the cop means business and to get on the floor as previously directed. That will comply with use of force rules and either be called "pushing the guy back with muzzle" or be categorized like a baton strike.

If you're a civilian looking for close quarters techniques for self-defense scenarios, focus on firing from retention positions, plain old retention, basic grappling and hard contact moves. Never plan to close the distance and make the advantages of a gun moot..reactionary gap, standoff distance, movement options.

Good luck.
Keep training.
 
Last edited:
I threw this out there for discussion...and it was more about how to strike with body weight than the pistol strike.

But...what does is matter if the gun is empty? What risk does striking with a loaded gun introduce? An "ND" into the person you are trying to injure already (and would prefer to shoot if it were an option?)

Most gunfights happen extremely close and fast, if they charge you and the bullets didn't work and they are on top of you now (beating on you), if you refuse to strike with a loaded gun, what do you do? Strike with 1 arm only? Try to shoot from retention? Drop the gun? (Striking with the off-hand while shooting from retention is an outstanding choice...do you practice that?)

The throat doesn't have to be the target, solar plexus (real easy to hit), groin, bladder would all get good results. The forces generated with a proper muzzle punch as shown above are massive. Try it with a dummy gun on a heavy bag. Don't be surprised if you punch into the bag, preventative duct tape on the target area might be a good idea. I have struck with unloaded autos as well, it does not introduce a malfunction, she slide can hardly move until the barrel and guide rod make contact.

Striking with a rifle or shotgun...well, that's a whole 'nuther level. More reach, force is focused on a much smaller area. You can cause massive internal damage, the forend makes a great impact weapon as well and still keeps the muzzle oriented towards the threat. A butt-stroke would swing the muzzle about 180deg. so there are safety concerns there.
 
I guess it's very situational and I can slant the facts to my side or your side. If a person with low strength tries to make their weight and inertia work for them, great...but going hand to hand against a stronger opponent is a bad idea. I'm just accepting that premise as a starting point. Heck, going against an equal opponent is bad.

I've trained with people who could grab my forearm and hold it...I couldn't break out. The guy was 330 pounds of muscle and I wasn't strong enough. Obviously, it was training and I didn't eye-gouge and kick, but they also didn't slam me on the ground and crush my skull with a stomp. I've done full-contact fights, you get your a-- kicked when fighting people with more skill, size, fighting experience. You don't take chances with hand to hand when you should be firing the gun. The gun will take its toll on the bad guy, then the field is leveled if you have to go hands-on.

Most people are soft, they aren't warriors. If we're talking street thugs, they spar, scrap and fight regularly. I've held people at gunpoint that I knew were physically superior and would win the fight. It was the badge and the thought of jail that kept them in line...that and my demeanor, that I would shoot them...it was a bluff. They were unarmed and it was expected that I would have to use a lesser means of force until it was clear I was going to be immobilized, choked, knocked out, or disarmed. The concept of taking a pistol from a position of retention and using it as a club was counter to training and common sense.

I'm not trying to be contrary just to zing you, I'm just saying that some things make more sense at certain times.

Yes, the technique is a good tool.

As an aside: I have staffed quals where a tiny piece of G19 plastic guide rod chipped off and ended up inside the slide...totally screwed. Could not close the slide the last 1/16th. I don't want to intentionally use a gun as a contact weapon when I'm in a GO for shooting situation.

I've done practice pistol punches on a live range at cardboard when shot dry & red gun on bags. The forces involved with polymer lowers against bags isn't worth it. If you throw 100+ pounds of force into a fat guys sternum, you may break your gun. Like I said, the mag well on a glock will dump the mag when the grip is torqued, I've done it. I don't want to lose ammo in a deadly force situation.

If you have ammo left and are going to be struck/grabbed, I'd roll with the tucked/tilted pistol at waist and non-dominant hand in a head guarding position (left hand to left ear)...and fire.
 
Last edited:
I see value here as a drill for an empty pistol.

I am not a big fan of using my hands to try to break facial bones, and even less a fan of putting my gun within reach of a bad guy at anytime, but for pretty specific and narrow circumstances (when you gun becomes a paper weight because of ammo) this would work okay.

Better than anything, it is a plan of action where most people don't have one.

putting body weight behind your strike is a valuable skill to have, but I would also caution too much commitment to a strike.
I am a lighter weight individual and I cannot tell you how many times a guy pretty well versed in hand fighting has tossed me because I had commit too much of my body weight into a single strike.

For me, hand fighting of any kind is just a way for me to get the heck out of dodge or create distance while I figure out what I'm going to hit him with next.

I am a big fan of the "first point of contact [hand] to strike the closest venerable spot on attackers body [eyes, throat, groin, nose, etc]"
 
I threw this out there for discussion...and it was more about how to strike with body weight than the pistol strike.
I appreciate you putting it out there, strambo.
I think most would agree that any kind of strike should be with vigor and utilizing the body mechanics as best as possible.

But...what does is matter if the gun is empty? What risk does striking with a loaded gun introduce? An "ND" into the person you are trying to injure already (and would prefer to shoot if it were an option?)
Respectfully, I would argue that the risk of a gun grab by the attacker is too high and could turn the tables for the good guy fairly quickly and dangerously.

I want to be hurting the bad guy to get him away from me not turn the confrontation into a wrestling match focused on getting (or retaining) the gun.

I would argue that shooting bad guy from retention, perhaps while moving sideways, is safer (at least in theory) for our good guy.

In my opinion hand fighting should be reserved for creating distance to get your firearm deployed.

Most gunfights happen extremely close and fast, if they charge you and the bullets didn't work and they are on top of you now (beating on you), if you refuse to strike with a loaded gun, what do you do? Strike with 1 arm only? Try to shoot from retention? Drop the gun? (Striking with the off-hand while shooting from retention is an outstanding choice...do you practice that?)
Here I would argue that if I can hit him with it, I can shoot him with it.
I would also argue that the off hand would be for guard and protection of the head/neck/face as best as possible.

When the gun is empty and a reload is not likely to happen before I buy the farm, I will absolutely start wailing with the slide locked pistol. You bet.

The throat doesn't have to be the target, solar plexus (real easy to hit), groin, bladder would all get good results. The forces generated with a proper muzzle punch as shown above are massive. Try it with a dummy gun on a heavy bag. Don't be surprised if you punch into the bag, preventative duct tape on the target area might be a good idea. I have struck with unloaded autos as well, it does not introduce a malfunction, she slide can hardly move until the barrel and guide rod make contact.

Striking with a rifle or shotgun...well, that's a whole 'nuther level. More reach, force is focused on a much smaller area. You can cause massive internal damage, the forend makes a great impact weapon as well and still keeps the muzzle oriented towards the threat. A butt-stroke would swing the muzzle about 180deg. so there are safety concerns there.

I agree that hitting somebody with anything semi pointy and metal is pretty effective.

Now all that is just opinion and only worth what you paid for it...
 
What risk does striking with a loaded gun introduce?
1. Breaking the gun and rendering it useless except as a striking weapon.
2. Inducing a malfunction or jam which renders the gun nonfunctional until remedial action can be applied.
3. Pushing a loaded firearm out toward the attacker where they have a better chance of grabbing it.

If you have time to strike by moving your whole body forward into the attacker, you have time to shoot repeatedly in the same interval. Once the gun is empty, if there's still been no opportunity to create distance in the process of emptying it, then it makes good sense to use it as a striking weapon.
The proper strike is at the very end of the clip (the initial one has more distance so they can see what I'm doing better). Note the starting and finishing positions of the dummy and myself...
Striking with enough force to move a large person back far enough that the striker takes the attacker's place during the strike will damage the hands/wrists of a person who hasn't practiced that kind of thing a lot. Maybe even if they have.

Run your demo again at full speed with a dummy that weighs 180lbs and video tape it.

You can push someone back if you don't strike at speed because then the amount of force required is reduced. But that increases the risk of a parry or grab.
Nobody can take a 135lb barbell thrown on their knee. So, they cant take a proper weighted heel-stomp through the knee either by a 135lb person driving all the way through...same physics.
Not the same physics. Barbells don't give when encountering flesh and bone. They don't have joints. Even with a locked knee and hip, a 135lb person won't apply as much force as a 135lb barbell impacting with the same velocity.

Force applied is equal to the momentum of the striking object divided by how long it takes to decelerate the striking object to zero velocity. A totally unyielding object will apply more force than an object that has yield even if both are the same weight and strike with the same velocity.
 
Last edited:
1. Breaking the gun and rendering it useless except as a striking weapon.
2. Inducing a malfunction or jam which renders the gun nonfunctional until remedial action can be applied.
3. Pushing a loaded firearm out toward the attacker where they have a better chance of grabbing it.

These are all very low percentages, like miniscule. I will say, that having occasion to strike with a loaded gun in a civilian setting where in that instant it makes more sense....is also probably a very low percentage occurrance. I'm just open to it as opposed to saying "never."

If you have time to strike by moving your whole body forward into the attacker, you have time to shoot repeatedly in the same interval. Once the gun is empty, if there's still been no opportunity to create distance in the process of emptying it, then it makes good sense to use it as a striking weapon.
Like stated above, we probably won't be doing this with a loaded gun, we'll be shooting them.

with enough force to move a large person back far enough that the striker takes the attacker's place during the strike will damage the hands/wrists of a person who hasn't practiced that kind of thing a lot. Maybe even if they have.

Run your demo again at full speed with a dummy that weighs 180lbs and video tape it.
Have you done it? Do you know? If you are striking the torso with a fist and do not have a great fist and wrist position...yes, you'll break something. However, there are scores of target areas and ways to strike them without risk of injury to ourselves. The strike demo'd is one of them. We aren't striking a 180lb heavy bag suspended from a ceiling. We are striking a 180lb object that is 6' tall, balancing on 2 small sticks. The strike is to soft flesh well above the CG of the tall object. They will move and displace pretty easy. Striking into their CG in the torso will yield less displacement and require better striking structure. Think stomp, heel palm, forearm, hammer fist.

If you strike well below the CG (knees, ankles), their weight adds to the injury once the joint gets dislocated. Our force just has to get the joint out of alignment and to the pathological limit where it starts to tear....but we'll use all the force we can generate anyway.

It can be as simple as stepping in and slamming your forearm into their throat, another step slam a knee in the groin, another step and stomp through the knee. 3 steps, 3 gross-motor movement strikes, 3 injuries, no damage to ourselves.

You can push someone back if you don't strike at speed because then the amount of force required is reduced. But that increases the risk of a parry or grab.Not the same physics. Barbells don't give when encountering flesh and bone. They don't have joints. Even with a locked knee and hip, a 135lb person won't apply as much force as a 135lb barbell impacting with the same velocity.

Force applied is equal to the momentum of the striking object divided by how long it takes to decelerate the striking object to zero velocity. A totally unyielding object will apply more force than an object that has yield even if both are the same weight and strike with the same velocity.
I understand that the analogy is not exact. The human application of force is too complex for any equation. I do not know how much force it takes to tear the ligaments in the knee.

What I do know is a) it takes far less than a 135lb woman is capable of generating if they get as much weight into it as they can. b) the person being struck already has the potential energy stored to injure their own knee (their weight plus gravity), we just have to set things in motion.

Finally, striking with all your weight is a little slower and you are fully commititng. This is what generates the comments about how they can parry, grab you, your gun etc. Well, here's the conundrum. What is going to stop the threat? A busted lip? Swollen eye? No, assuming they don't decide to quit, the only thing stopping them is injury, broken body parts until they can't function.

If you are holding back, striking with only limb strength quickly, worried about what they can do to you, you are making that a self-fullfilling prophecy because each strike has less potential to injure them making them more able to parry, grab, counter etc. If you blast into them with all you've got, the odds of injury go way up. I'm not talking about a MMA match with 2 equal fighter who know what's up. The 135lb female can't possibly survive by "fighting" the bigger stronger attacker with traditional striking. It won't injure them (except eyes, throat, groin, these targets don't require lots of force). I always assume they will be bigger-stronger-faster than me. I don't want to "fight" them either or find out how good they are.

Launch your body at a weak area of theirs that is available and exposed, connect with a hard part of you that is rated to take the force (forearm, heel, etc) and injure them. Bare minimum, you'll knock them off balance and gain an opportunity to break something else before they get their balance back.

"But what if they......" Well, what if? There are no guarantees. The criminal justice system has a term for people who always worry about what the other person might do and how to counter it or defend themselves. They are known as "victims."

I'm not worried about what they are doing. I'm 100% focused on injuring them. Go ahead and grab my gun (if you can). Wrestling or grappling over it will be impossible though...because I won't. While they are going for the gun, I'll tear out their eye or crush their throat. It is not possible at the same time for them to be grabbing my gun and also protecting the other target areas. Their hands are on my gun, congrats!

To wrap up, what do you have to lose? We are talking about a situation we couldn't avoid or run away from. A situation degraded to the point that we can no longer shoot them and must either strike to injure or do nothing. Fight like your life depends on it, commit 100% of you to destroying whatever vulnerable anatomy of them is exposed. Don't hold anything back and don't waste a fear-based second worrying about what they might do.
 
...we probably won't be doing this with a loaded gun...A situation degraded to the point that we can no longer shoot them...
If that was the initial assumption, it would have been good to state it up front as a significant part of the discussion here has been centered around the issues of striking with a loaded gun.
I do not know how much force it takes to tear the ligaments in the knee.

What I do know is a) it takes far less than a 135lb woman is capable of generating if they get as much weight into it as they can. b) the person being struck already has the potential energy stored to injure their own knee (their weight plus gravity), we just have to set things in motion.
Right, I wasn't arguing that a heel strike to a knee wouldn't be effective or that it wouldn't be damaging. Just pointing out that the physics aren't the same as striking the knee with a barbell of equivalent weight to the person doing the heel strike.
We are striking a 180lb object that is 6' tall, balancing on 2 small sticks.
For the same reason that the striker is able to drive their bodyweight into the attacker, an attacker can present a lot more resistance than an equivalent weight balanced on sticks. Even with the understanding that it won't represent the full-resistance scenario, I'd like to see a full-speed, full power strike with the technique described, into a dummy weighted to simulate a standing adult male.

Without weight added to the base for stability, the dummy in the video weighs less than 50lbs. Even with weight added to the base for stability, the effect is not the same as what would be encountered with a person since the weight is distributed differently.

In a relatively fit 180lb human, something like 110-120lbs of the weight is carried above the waist. Roughly 3x what the comparable parts of the dummy weigh. Most of that weight will have to be displaced if the striker intends to occupy that space at the end of the strike. While a 135lb person driving in at full speed and with their full body weight behind the strike might be able to manage it, if they do, it's going to put a huge amount of stress on the hands and wrists.
 
Last edited:
It doesn't have to be that complicated. Just step/slam into another person at full speed and displace them (chest to chest-large surface area so no injury). Easy to try, easy to do, doesn't require some fancy experiment and I've done it many times.

Again as far as wrist/hand position, don't punch then. Use the ulnar side of the forearm to the throat. A heel-palm to the chin, a claw to the eye, a hammer fist to the bridge of the nose, or clavicle, or jaw hinge.

I didn't mention particulars about the gun because I posted the video to demonstrate striking with bodyweight, not go down into the weeds about weapon striking...but that is where everyone else wanted to take it.

Edit: Displacing the person actually isn't the goal and is even counter to what we are after. We want injury. Ideally, they would be up against a wall. Then, if we drive all our weight into them, and they can't go back due to the wall, the force has to go somewhere. If our structure is sound (feet flat, back straight, balance driving forward), the weak link becomes their tissue. It absorbs the force until it bursts/breaks.

So, a 135lb female vs. a 330 linebacker doesn't matter. Their additional mass equals more inertia that roots them in place longer taking more of the force before displacing. Displacement allows them to reduce the impact. If she steps in and drives a heel-palm into the solar plexus (fingers pointed to the outside), she will blast the air of of him and not do any damage to herself.

In a training course I went to, we did a "Flak Jacket" drill. It involved putting on an old flak jacket and the other person striking them full force to the chest with a forearm followed by a punch repeatedly each side driving them across the room. It was rough and painful with many a bruise...but the flak absorbed just enough impact for no broken ribs and in a class of 30, no broken wrists either.

Also note, in the final strike of that clip I am moving at half speed and starting out twice as far as normal. Launching it from half the distance at full speed, let's just say them grabbing my gun or parrying is not a big concern (they'll have 1/4 the time to react as the clip-twice the speed, half the distance). Even if they manage to avoid the throat shot, my body will slam into them and take their balance and I'll just target something else.
 
Last edited:
I didn't mention particulars about the gun because I posted the video to demonstrate striking with bodyweight, not go down into the weeds about weapon striking...but that is where everyone else wanted to take it.
Yeah--'tis a gun forum, after all. :D
 
Sure, why not? It works just as well as anything else...it isn't like we're squaring up in the Octagon..this is in the middle of a fluid and dynamic violent and chaotic conflict.

It's a very small soft area (somewhat rounded to boot) and hard to make contact with.


Sure, about .25" until the barrel makes contact...so?

You can jam your gun that way. Slide may keep going back some.

I don't give a single nanosecond of thought as to what they are going to do. They can grapple for my inanimate object all they want while I focus 100% on tearing them apart. Besides, nobody is "grappling" with a crushed throat after being taken off their feet and then starting to asphyxiate.

How you gonna 'tear them apart' with your hands on the gun?

I would if it were an option, it isn't always an option (too close, jam, out of ammo, etc).

To close? I'd say to jam it in their throat you gotta be mighty close. Out of ammo? But if there is ammo in the gun why not just shoot? Jam? But the gun to strike their throat might very well jam it (the barrel may stop after 1/4 inch but the slide may go farther back.)

Deaf
 
How you gonna 'tear them apart' with your hands on the gun?

By letting go of the gun, they can keep it (for a second). It isn't a magic talisman, if they think it is what makes me lethal they are welcome to it. Time and space works the same for everyone. If they take their moment in space and time to grab my gun, I'll take the same moment to let go and take their eye.

And once again, for the umpteenth time, if there is ammo in the gun and you can shoot them, then shoot them!

A muzzle punch isn't going to make the gun jam unless you break something like a barrel lug in a 1911 or the plastic guide rod in a Glock. No, you can't shoot at impact because the slide is out of battery, but you can shoot a nanosecond before and after....if you had ammo. If no, it is irrelevant and probably why you are striking with it in the first place.

There is no way that the slide moves enough to jam the gun. I've struck heavy bags full-force plenty of times with empty autos, it is not so dramatic as the hypothetical arguments being constructed around it.
 
I don't want crap on your thread. I though my answers were well thought out.
I wish you well in your training.
 
By letting go of the gun, they can keep it (for a second).

If you are gonna let go of the gun... then just use your hands and feet to begin with (you did say the gun was empty, right.)

Nothing fancy needed. I mean this ain't John Wick stuff.

Deaf
 
I agree with beat cop on this. The technique is for a last ditch effort but not one I would advocate.

Strambo, you've pretty much ignored something very important. What if the opponent blocks or dodges your technique? It puts you closer and off balance if you're throwing all your body weight into it. The best way for that 135 lb woman to fight a much bigger opponent is speed. Go in strike and back off. Don't give that opponent a chance to use their weight to their advantage. If your technique fails thats what you've done. You don't seem to have a plan B if it fails.

I didn't come up with this in a vacuum. I have a healthy background in martial arts, spent over 30 years as a LEO, and a firearms and tactics instructor since 1976.
 
As a guy who has been training in multiple striking arts for about 15yrs (and 25 grappling), the video does not demonstrate good use of bodyweight translated into the strike. Your arms are crumple zones, in the weakest position of their RoM - Very Steven Seagal-esque... If you're throwing a pistol-laden punch, throw it as a punch - engage your foundation and lead the hip and shoulder to the strike. The way you're jabbing with the muzzle, your only power is coming from your peck's and triceps, nothing from the hips WHICH IS WHERE THE POWER IN STRIKES SHOULD COME FROM.

The "rabbit punch" has a place in striking, but it's not a power strike.

Striking mechanics don't change just because you have a weapon in your hand - watch how baseballers hips open upon a swing, the same way a boxer's hips open upon a cross.

It looks great, and it would hurt, but if you're striking for effect, using a pistol as an extension of your hand to increase your weapon's efficacy (weapon = hand in this case), then the fundamentals need to improve drastically.

Take consideration of the likelihood of connecting on target with the "hard hand" (the pistol-laden striking hand), the throat is a small target with high mobility, and high defense. Solar plexus is less mobile, a larger target, and just as devastating. Realize you can knock someone out with an effective and focused liver shot - much larger than the adams apple, and less defended too. Temporal strikes are higher percentage strikes as well...

Also, I STRONGLY believe it is a disservice to any women (or smaller bodied men) to instruct them to move into close contact of a larger, male attacker. As someone who has competed against women, there's just no way to make up for the power differential. As a 195lb man, any time I'm sparring even some of the professional female fighters at our gym, there is no leveling of the playing field. A smaller woman will never out-range a taller, larger man on their feet, and once they're in arms reach, things only get worse. I have the privilege of training with world level female fighters (and male), and despite having far superior technique to my own, they can't make up for a 50-75lb mass differential or 5-7" reach differential. It's a hot button for me to see any instructor giving combatives techniques and prefacing "even works for women" where the technique is advancing towards the attacker. If a woman is outside of arms reach of their assailant, they should NOT be moving into their attackers range. If they are INSIDE their assailants' range, techniques should be focused on getting out. Anything less is instilling a false sense of security.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top