John Farnam writes [via ammoland.com]
“Warriors should not have ‘favorite’ weapons.” ~ Miyamoto Musashi, from his “Book of Five Rings,” written in 1645AD, near the end of his life. One of our students recalls a valuable drill, and now knows why we include it . . .
“Earlier this year, I was by myself in our remote mountain home.
Shortly after midnight, I was awakened by our driveway alarm and dogs barking. Getting up to investigate, I saw headlights on our steep mountain approach, heading in my direction. I observed for a few minutes as at least one car pulled below my drive and backed up. Very suspicious, as I was not expecting anyone!
I own two pistols, and on this particular day both were in the shop having sights installed. As a novice shooter, I only feel truly comfortable shooting my own guns.
But, my “favorite” guns weren’t available!
My brain immediately flashed back to my training with Vicki and the ‘ Battlefield Pick-up Drill,’ where we all handled and shot every gun present. This has to be the most valuable training exercise of my entire shooting life, although I didn’t know it at the time!
Thanks to that training, I knew it was possible that I could pick up whatever pistol was available, and run it correctly and effectively. Thus mentally equipped with this ‘battlefield mentality,’ I retrieved my husband’s 1911 (which I had never shot), and then called 911.
While I’ve never shot my husband’s 1911 pistol, I was not afraid of it. I have shot other 1911 pistols, and I know how to run them, even though they ’ll probably never be my favorite.
I stood guard, observing headlights crisscrossing below my property, until police arrived. I was informed the next day that several people in the cars in question had been arrested as burglary suspects.
No harm done, but as it turns out, this incident was a wonderful training exercise and wake-up call, and I discovered the true value of that ‘ Battlefield Pick-up Drill,’ which, at time Vicki put us through it, I thought was superfluous!
I have my ‘regular’ pistols back now, and all is well, but I know I will never again think in terms of self-imposed ‘limitations.’
I’ll find a way to win, not look for an excuse to lose!”
Comment:
Miyamoto Musashi in his day was a seasoned and exceptional fighter, the “John Boyd” of his time. He lived in a dangerous place during a particularly dangerous era, where the naive and unprepared seldom died of old age!
We are fortunate that he wrote down valuable and hard-learned advice shortly before he died (natural causes) at the age of sixty-one.
He knew, as we do, that a “favorite weapon” is little more than an excuse to lose. Thus, with the convenient absence of the “favorite weapon,” the fight is decided before it ever starts!
In his most famous duel, Musashi (age thirty at the time) was challenged by an extremely famous swordsman, known and feared throughout the region. The confrontation was pre-arranged and took place on a beach.
The challenger, waiting in full battle regalia, was astonished and disgusted when Musashi arrived, late, and barely dressed, as if he had just woken up. Musashi neglected to even bring his sword!
Enraged and insulted, the challenger move forward quickly to make short work of this impudent “Master.” His overconfidence was his undoing!
Musashi, using an oar from the boat in which he had just arrived, killed his hapless opponent in less than a minute, then immediately departed in the same boat!
As it turns out, the challenger was completely outclassed, not even in the same league! He paid dearly for his miscalculation!
Musashi was always “ready.” He never waited for perfect conditions. He never hesitated!
In his honor, we put students through the “Battlefield Pick-up Drill” today, with today’s weapons, so our students absorb this ancient wisdom well!
During our lifelong journey as Operators and students of the Art, we can’t help but develop preferences. We all like some guns better than others, sometimes for good reasons, but sometimes for no particular reason at all, at least none we can persuasively articulate.
No matter!
We must love, and be familiar with, all of them and never look upon the invariable absence of “perfect conditions” as some kind of limitation upon our ability to gain victory.
/John
About John Farnam & Defense Training International, Inc
As a defensive weapons and tactics instructor John Farnam will urge you, based on your own beliefs, to make up your mind in advance as to what you would do when faced with an imminent and unlawful lethal threat. You should, of course, also decide what preparations you should make in advance, if any. Defense Training International wants to make sure that their students fully understand the physical, legal, psychological, and societal consequences of their actions or inactions.
It is our duty to make you aware of certain unpleasant physical realities intrinsic to the Planet Earth. Mr Farnam is happy to be your counselor and advisor. Visit: www.defense-training.com
Good advice. I never turn down a chance to fire a new type I haven’t handled, or one I haven’t shot in years (A Smith L-frame, .357).
I doubt many of the armed intelligentsia pass up the opportunity either.
read the 47th samurai
it references mushashi frequently and is a good book to boot.
47 Samurai, not 47th.
Given the theme of this article, a better read (and to my mind a better philosophy) is The Unfettered Mind, by Takuan Soho – an acquaintance of Musashi’s, and the only person known to have beaten him in a duel.
Where did you find record of Takuan defeating Miyamoto in a duel? As far as I understand Miyamoto was undefeated.
Really. Had there been a duel, one of them would have been dead. And we know that Musashi died of old age. Friendly sparring perhaps, but no duel.
I can’t remember – it might have been in Unfettered Mind, which was written in almost direct opposition of Musashi’s philosophy, as written in Five RIngs, or it might have been in some biographical work about Soho. It was probably more of a friendly contest than a duel, as the two knew each other for some time and where not adversarial (neither was reported to be injured). But, as I recall Musashi bested Soho, who some years later returned the favor – Soho used a Jo stick, I believe. (its possible I am misremembering of course, but Unfettered Mind is worth the read for the reasons I mentioned)
@ Mark – not all duels ended in death, or even injury.
Follow up: I was combining Takuan’s story with Gonnosuke’s (the Jo stick guy). Time to go dig through all my old boxes of books again, I guess. But anyways, Takuan did write Unfettered Mind as counter philosophy to Musashi’s – that much I recall from reading both books. Musashi generally believe in seizing the initiative, striking first and being fully commited, even recklessly disregarding your own safety, in order to overwhelm an opponent. Soho on the other hand, practiced a passive approach, that waited for the opponent to commit and then use that momentum against them, redirecting energy and position to capitalize on whatever openings necessarily showed themselves once the opponent committed to their action.
Well it’s not like she had a choice. Pro tip: If you can’t be with the one you love, love the one you’re with.
Some women can get downright annoyed with that philosophy.
Oh, guns!
Nevermind…
I think that the argument is being taken too literally in this case.
Musashi was talking about a favorite TYPE of weapon i.e. katana, naginata, yari, bow, etc…
It’s perfectly acceptable to have a favorite sword, for example, because your sword techniques rely on familiarity with the weight, balance, and reach of a particular sword.
Translating this to modern terms, it’s perfectly acceptable to have a favorite rifle, pistol, shotgun, etc…
Mostly because your proficiency with a given weapon is dependent on you having an ingrained familiarity with the manual of arms, balance, and aiming characteristics for a particular weapon.
For example, I am very proficient with the Mk18 platform for my rifle, hand me an AK, and I will not be nearly as good with it. Why? The manual of arms, balance and aiming of the weapon are radically different. The old “jack of all trades, master of none” adage comes into play. No person can be expected to be as good with every rifle handed to them. The very idea denies the advantages that familiarity with a particular weapons system brings to the shooter.
For me, the list is
Mk 18 SBR
M110 DMR
M11 Pistol
Mossberg 500 shotgun
Agreed.
A lot of the “old advice” has to be taken as a whole, in context (not exactly what I mean, but I’m drawing a blank on phrasing).
It’s an argument I get in a lot regarding Bruce Lee and the concept of being formless. It’s not a manatee to be sloppy or to make things up, it’s a mandate to master EVERY form so that you can pick and choose when the time comes.
*mandate
Some days the phone and I just don’t get along.
So what you are saying is, DON’T FEED THE MANATEES!
If peirsonb keeps stuffing his face he will become formless, Bruce Lee or not…
(Hey, I’ve got the same problem 🙂 )
It’s not so much the intake as the outgo…a complete and total lack of anything resembling physical activity.
hugh manatee.
He also literally crated (and perfected) the method of fighting with two swords. He didn’t win that dual with an oak because he was a master at fighting with any object. His opponent was famed for using a ling sword. Musashi carved an oak into a wood sword longer than that of his opponent. He arrived late to piss him off and get inside his loop.
His “2-sword style” was based on observing Portuguese sailors duel- They favored a long straight sword and a short dagger at the time. He adapted and perfected it for Japanese swords, but it was still based on the Portuguese style.
The term “favorite” (ie: I favor it) can be applied to each and every weapon I own, else I would not have spent my meager income on it.
Musashi also recommended living in the wild, in a cave, and putting your family out to be homeless if you needed to save the money to buy a spear or sword. He had no life other than the duel. Shitty way to live.
Oh, and “We must love, and be familiar with, all of them” – Good luck with that.
Five will get you ten that Musashi knew the Eku Kata!
B.S.
If Musashi was alive today, he’d probably be a die-hard GLOCK fan. T-shirt, hats, lap-top stickers and everything.
Nonsense, he would have a 1911. It is still a formidable weapon when you run out of ammo and have to go hand-to-hand. A Glock is just a piece of plastic.
Ok, maybe, but still a GLOCK hat and T-shirt.
It’s like a Harley-jacketed Goldwing Rider.
“During our lifelong journey as Operators and students of the Art…”
God, no. Or at least, speak for yourself, not for all of us.
Many pro-gun folk are not obsessive about “the Art” (ugh) or being effective “Operators” (double ugh).
And that’s OK!
And it’s important that we make clear that’s OK, in order to avoid alienating potential new members to our big tent.
Here’s my Pro Tip: Stop treating life as little more than preparation for the next gunfight.
Yes, a gun can save your life, and it’s critical to adopt a responsible mindset if you intend to use one for that purpose. However, that mindset does not require you to start thinking like a damned samurai.
TXDadoo,
I have lived my entire life in extremely safe suburban and rural locations. I have always ran with “good people”. I have never participated in any “stupid” activities. Any serious risk of attack from human or animal should be nil. And yet I have had life-threatening encounters with humans and animals on multiple occasions. With the exception of one encounter, the only reason I survived is because I managed to evade (through sheer speed) my aggressors, and then only by the skin of my teeth and because I was alone. (I could not have evacuated friends or family members to safety.)
I believe it is utterly foolish to rely on luck or world class speed/maneuvering (running, biking, or driving) to remain alive. Rather, I believe it is wise to know how to use your hands, arms, legs, firearms, and improvised melee weapons to defend yourself.
In case you are wondering about that “exception of one encounter” where world class speed was not a factor, I was actually armed that time and believe my handgun affected the outcome of that encounter in a huge way.
Hmm. I have the same kind of background as you, but in my sixty years I have had a serious run in with neither man nor beast. I’ve gotten the evil eye a couple of times in my youth, but that was about it.
My objection is that this article (you?) are purporting to draw the line between “foolish” and “wise” for all of us. And, apparently, you are doing so based upon your anecdotal experience, as opposed to any meaningful evidence.
That’s some BS.
We all perform a balancing exercise when we decide what steps to take in order to protect ourselves and our families, weighing the risks associated with inaction against the burdens associated with action. Those available steps exist along a spectrum. Something like:
1 – Do nothing.
2 – Put effort into not living in Cooper’s condition White.
3 – Carry some pepper spray or other, non-ballistic self-defense implements.
4 – Have a home-defense gun.
5 – Take some basic self-defense / “awareness” classes.
6 – Carry a handgun.
7 – Take basic handgun-handling and shooting classes.
8 – Carry an extra mag.
9 – Take basic home-defense handgun and shooting classes.
10 – Take intermediate handgun-handling and shooting classes.
11 – Carry a BUG and more mags.
12 – Take intermediate home-defense handgun and shooting classes.
13 – Take advanced handgun-handling and shooting classes.
14 – Carry another BUG. Maybe more mags.
15 – Take advanced home-defense handgun and shooting classes.
16 – Regularly attend advanced firearms-handling and shooting classes of all kinds.
17 – Wear body armor.
18 – “Bunkerize” your house.
19 – Carry a carbine.
20 – Start shopping for armored cars.
21 – Found and move into a militia commune with like-minded friends.
22 – Be Instructor Zero.
Somewhere within the above (admittedly, equal parts over-simplified and hyperbolic) spectrum, we all draw lines between “foolishly unprepared” and “wisely prepared,” and also between “wisely prepared” and “foolishly paranoid.” We draw those lines (or should draw them) based on reliable evidence regarding the risks we may face and on the financial costs, discomfort, and/or emotional toll required by taking the “next step.”
These are inherently and intensely personal decisions.
The above article (with which I assume you agree) – together with a large swath of the self-defense industrial complex – seems to stand for the proposition that unless you start attacking life like a warrior – until you get past step 10 or so on the hypothetical spectrum above – you are being “foolish.”
That messaging is dangerous and wrong-headed. It overwhelms neophytes and leads them to believe that there really isn’t any point in taking action to protect themselves if they aren’t willing to commit to training like a SEAL. This does those individuals a severe disservice. It also inevitably loses us potential new allies in the struggle to defend our Second Amendment rights.
That messaging also is wrong. For every “wisely prepared warrior” anecdote you can throw at me, I probably could crack open the last installment of “Armed Citizen” and show you an example of someone’s grandma successfully defending herself using the 30-year old Ruger Bearcat her late husband kept in the nightstand.
Look, guns work. They may work better if you have lots and lots of training, but they still work just fine in many cases even if all you ever learn are the fundamentals of safety and shooting – things you can learn on a Saturday afternoon.
Advanced training is fine (and hella fun!), but it absolutely *is not* necessary for everyone. To be sure, I never would discourage anyone from seeking it out, since it indeed may marginally increase the odds of a successful self-defense encounter. (And for those in higher-risk professions or otherwise facing elevated chances of having to defend themselves, the burdens of advanced training may be significantly outweighed by the benefits.)
However, these incessant, broadly-applied guilt trips – all these “OMG you simply aren’t prepared unless you commit to [insert advanced training regimen here]!!!” protestations – are grating, and they amount to little more than marketing.
I am 100% in agreement with you. A basic defensive pistol course plus practice is all an armed citizen needs to become proficient enough to defend himself. I will go farther and say practice is more important than additional training beyond basic pistol. To paraphrase Bobby Jones, self defense takes place in 5″ battlefield between your ears. If you don’t have it there then all the training in the world won’t help.
Down below I stated that you don’t know how well you are prepared until you have false alarm. Unlike a training scenario you are dealing with unexpected. It requires you to evaluate an uncertain situation in the fly and not go blazing away.
TXDadoo,
I never suggested that everyone who fails to invest 1000+ hours mastering all manner of weapons is foolish. Rather, I suggested that relying on luck or speed alone to never suffer injury from an attack is foolish.
How much time someone should spend learning/training to use their hands, arms, elbows, knees, feet, firearms, and improvised melee weapons is up to each individual to determine. As little as 5 hours of training with a firearm, 5 hours of training in basic martial arts strikes, and 5 hours of training with melee weapons is probably enough to make just about anyone a formidable adversary against any attacker. Training above and beyond that is gravy — and most people undertaking such additional training are probably doing it as much for exercise benefits and just plain fun as they are to improve their skills.
Back to your implication that my anecdotes are a statistical outlier of some sort, consider this: more than 1 million victims of violent attacks reported their attacks to police agencies last year. And many more never bothered to report their attacks for various reasons. (The victim may not trust police, may have been involved in a questionable activity when attacked, may fear retribution, may want to exact revenge themselves, and may not even care to report their attack.) While no one has a hard number for the number of unreported attacks, I am going to say that actual attacks are something like twice the number reported to police agencies. If that is true, then there were something like 2 million victims of violent crime last year. And while that number seems fairly small compared to our population of about 330 million people, it still means that violent criminals attacked about 1 of every 115 people last year. Finally, while that number might even seem fairly small, it becomes significant when you consider a 30 year span of your life which increases your general odds of being a victim of violent crime to about 1 in 4.
Sure, the actual probability of being the victim of a violent crime over a 30 year span of your life depends on your specific lifestyle … thus people will range above and below that. Where exactly someone ranges is hard to tell. At any rate, if your odds are anywhere near even 1 in 10 of being the victim of a violent crime, I think it is foolish to just “take your chances” and have no skills and no tools to defend yourself from violent attack. And I didn’t even talk about animal attacks in those numbers.
Will some people fail to join our side because we overemphasize the importance/requirements for training? I don’t know. What I do know: telling people that they are good to go with basically no training and/or no firearms/weapons (because they will almost certainly never face a life threatening attack) is at best a disservice and at worst outright dishonest.
I believe the best course of action is to provide people with good information. Tell them how likely they are to face a life threatening attack from humans or animals. (Fairly high odds over a lifetime.) Tell them how much better they will fair such an attack when they have basic martial arts, firearms, and melee weapons skills. (Much greater odds of surviving an attack and much greater odds of surviving the attack with minimal injury.) And encourage them to start with the basics and advance at their pace. (Should NOT alienate any stable person.)
Like when you’re not supposed to have a favorite kid but we all do…..
I can agree with this but have my own opinions as well:
1)We all bias towards things. Just the way of the world. Coke or Pepsi, M&P or Glock it happens. Giving it the nod and compensating on is a good thing.
2)Different weapons have different educational aspects. Driving a FWD car vs a RWD vs an AWD car are different (especially in less than optimal circumstances) but they are all cars. This is why people who use virtually any tool well fall more towards the category of mastery for that topic than those who use one or two well.
3)Trying new guns is fun, and it gets you thinking about what we like and do not like. I certainly enjoy shooting virtually anything I can get my hands on with a few exceptions.
4)1-3 all play into this one. Based on what we know and what we have tried and what we believe we tend to optimize our firearms to ourselves. As an example any of the handguns and rifles I have that aren’t collector items are modified in one way or another to suit myself better. Maybe its as simple as a trigger spring in that J-frame or some improved sights on an M&P. Maybe it’s a Glock built with no Glock Parts.
5)A good tool does not make a person better at something and a skilled person can make a less than optimal tool work but neither changes that everything has to perform in an adequate way for the job to get done. Example:
https://www.wired.com/2015/06/i-made-an-untraceable-ar-15-ghost-gun/
He couldn’t build an 80% AR with a drill press, but using the ghost gunner he had no problem making a functional firearm. This is something many, many people have done before myself included. Clueless idiot combined with an adequate but suboptimal tool equaled less than desirable results, while clueless idiot plus with super optimal tool equaled acceptable results
6)even with all this, fundamentals for anything are key. It doesn’t matter if it’s driving a car, shooting a gun, operating a drill press or reviving the lost art of conversation. The best way to get skill is with seat/range/whatever time.
You saw what he did with that completed 80 percent lower, didn’t you?
Quigley had a favorite weapon, but he knew how to use others. I think it’s okay to have a favorite, just don’t concentrate on that one to the detriment of the rest.
Please, no Hollywood references, just please.
As Clint Smith put it, “”Beware the man who only has one gun. He probably knows how to use it!”
Or, Bruce Lee’s take on it…”I fear not the man who has practiced 10,000 kicks once, but I fear the man who has practiced one kick 10,000 times.”
Just for the opposite side of the argument…
I can’t recall any modern day exceptional shooter who only owns one firearm. Jerry Miculek, Instructor Zero, the TTAG guys, Michelle V., Jessie Duff, KJW, Travis Haley, Nick Leghorn, Jeremy S., Tom in Oregon, etc. All of the exceptional shooters I know own dozens of guns.
But do they have a favorite?
You never know if you have absorbed your training and honed your instincts until you have a false alarm.
+1000
I was out with a rookie officer on a prowler call and we had shots fired about 50 feet from us. He froze and then lost it. Turned out to be a guy shooting raccoons getting in to his trash (never did find a prowler ). Took me 15 minutes to even get the rookie in the car. He resigned when we got to the station. Lots of people think they can handle “it” but thatb is not true.
How can you screw up musashi?
Some of you are priceless.
John Farnam says a lot of things.
I like Robert deNiro’s remark in Ronin when asked his favorite weapon. “It’s a toolbox, you take out what you need.” I have a toolbox. I can use everything in it. The toolbox analogy possibly comes from craftsmen. A carpenter of mechanic knows how to use every tool in their box proficiently.
Not a soldier, not a cop, i’ll always have a favorite gun.
Doesn’t mean I’m not proficient in any gun i happen to own, just means I have some i shoot more than others.
According to “gun people” you can’t possibly learn more than one system or safety at a time, and you need to spend lots of money on training classes.
” lifelong journey as Operators”?
When people use this term in a serious manner, they lose credibility. At least to me. It’s today’s equivalent of mall ninja.
Why should anyone care about what some uncouth feral Japanese troglodyte like Musashi had to say about anything. He was considered an arrogant self important douche even in his own time and his doucheness lives on in the “hearts” and minds of mall ninjas everywhere.
If you’re going to read old Japanese books on combat the best is probably “The Life Giving Sword” by Yagyu Munenori. It’s not about “tips and tricks” it’s about mindset.
“Musashi, using an oar from the boat in which he had just arrived, killed his hapless opponent in less than a minute, then immediately departed in the same boat!”
It should be noted that he didn’t use an oar as a weapon, he carved a long straight bokken from an oak boat oar and fought the battle with bokken vs katana.
They even make replicas of it:
http://www.tozandoshop.com/Musashi-s-Oar-Shape-Bokken-p/012-234.htm
try taking a wooden bokken against an armored Western knight with a shield and mace. Musashi would have lived about 30 seconds against even a brand-new knight.
There’s nothing wrong with having a favorite gun if you know how to use it.
Well if everyone would carry a Glock 19 like they should, this wouldn’t be an issue.
From rhe lady’s story the first failure is taking your two pistols and making them inoperable/inaccessible at rhe same time so you have no choice but to rely on hardware you have very used.
All my pistols are variations of the same design so that no matter which one is grabbed under duress my mind doesn’t have to try and change gears. I can send two to the shop for work and still havenone that is essentially the same so I don’t end up like this woman.
I will shoot anything put in front of me. I will share my firearms in kind. Not having a favorite means not eschewing all other weapons to train with only one specific kind. The trainers seem to have this idea that finding the platform that works best for you is somehow suboptimal.
“Not having a favorite means not eschewing all other weapons to train with only one specific kind. ”
This is exactly what all the glock(AND 1911) fanboys are so bad at. Thinking that they have discovered some ‘eternal truth’ that no one else has.
What they need to do is broaden their horizons a little. But, human nature being what it is, that’s not likely to happen anytime soon. Its too much easier(and, apparently, more satisfiying, at least for them) to act as the know-it-all.
Most arguments are over the need of a manual safety or reliability.
The most important thing is are you confident in your choice. Only the person knows his level of confidence. And it isn’t always the most confident that argues most vehemently.
Exactly. Each to his own choices.
But, as regarding the glock as so simple, then why isn’t the humble revolver held up as the ultimate(so far) in simplicity and reliabilty in repeating handguns, since it is so much more of both than a glock?
Heavy gun. Heavy trigger. Lower capacity. Slower reload. Less concealable.
I have suggested people in California carry a .357 revolver since magazine capacity is restricted. I like revolver cartridges, particularly the .357magnum.
But in free states, I’ll keep my 15, 17, 20, 33 round magazines, thank you.
Those are all reasons, but none of them change the basic facts that revolvers ARE simpler to learn to use and inherently safer than a glock.
Also each of them are arguable untrue, depending upon the exact models chosen. For example a “J” frame Smith is both lighter and more concealable than a glock. It’s the butt that prints, not the cylinder or frame.
The ammo capacity is the one issue that a revolver just can’t compete with. But a good argument can be made that if one is so new to firearms that they don’t feel comfortable with safeties, they need to be encouraged to make more of their shots count, not less. I’ve noticed that the rash of LEOs who can’t seem to hit much, regardless of how many rounds they send downrange, or how many bystanders they hit, seemed to start at about the same time as the glock came unto the scene.
Perhaps the adoption of the glock(for the ease and cheapness of training people to transition from revolvers to autoloaders) might have something to do with that?
Kenneth. a study was done. By, I believe, the LAPD. In the time of the transition from revolvers in leo holsters to semi’s.
The upshot of the study was that a cop fired all his rounds during a hostile encounter. When it was a revolver he dumped 6 rounds down range. With a semi he dumped 16. In a densely populated urban environment.
Does this mean we should restrict cops to revolvers?
IMO, yes, it sure does! If the best that training can produce is officers that will dump all the rounds they have, seemingly at random, and hit more bystanders than suspects(which is sure how it correlates today, and I am aware that that does not mean causation), then yes, not only should they have their glocks taken away, they should be issued single shot rifles instead.
Then, when an individual can PROVE that they can hit when under stress on the actual job, THEN they can have a revolver.
Or perhaps they need to have no gun at all, like the Brits. Then, when they can show they can use a simple weapon(like a stick) responsibly, they might trade up.
Sadly, such logic angers the powers that be, who have largely been trained to shoot first and worry about any “collateral damage” later. And for so long as they remain shielded from their own bad judgement, the problem will only get worse and worse. Just as I have been watching it do for four decades now… so far.
Slightly off topic, but a mediocre western knight in full armor with a mace would kill any samurai easily in a duel the vast majority of time. A samurai sword designed to slice would not have any effect on armor.
having the best slicing sword technology does not make up for every other technology being inferior. Western armor, stabbing weapons, smashing weapons, projectile weapons, seige machines, shields, lances, caltrops, etc. were mostly far superior to their eastern counterparts.
I only have two firearms, one is a pistol, one is a shotgun. I don’t like to have to make a lot of decisions.
So, every time I go to the range and bring a variety of handguns from the collection to shoot, I was doing the exact right thing? Who knew? 😀
Actually, I practice this regularly, though not as often as I’d like, but I bring a variety of guns and practice learning the point of aim, practicing proper grip and reacquainting myself with the vagaries of how each trigger breaks and resets, and so on. I do find I’m more accurate with certain handguns more than others, but that’s the point: learn how to put rounds where I want them to with each gun in the safe, regardless of which one is my “favorite”.
Hint: if they’re still in the safe and not sold off, they’re all my “favorite”. 😀
Good article.
“Beware of the many with only one gun. He probably knows how to use it.”
I think it’s a good thing to be familiar with different types. You can’t count 100% on your preferred weapon being available. That said, you can hone your skills to a sharper edge with one gun than you can with many. Some guns just fit the shooter better, period. Along with that, the more trigger time you have on a particular gun the better you will use it. So there’s nothing wrong with having a preferred type. I would even say there is an advantage to it.
Comments are closed.