As someone who's interested both in sword fighting and shooting, I've noticed an odd reluctance in both camps to pay much attention to each other.  For those who focus on firearms, anything longer than a large Bowie knife is seen as somehow impractical or outright insane to contemplate.  For the other side, firearms are often seen as the things that destroyed the "noble" swords even though the two technologies operated hand-in-glove for over five hundred years.   While there are a lot of good reasons to favor firearms for practical defense, I think there's still much to be gained by studying swordplay.  Both general martial concepts and specific insights.  The concept of Zufechten from German longsword, for example, can offer insights into how a fight in general is commenced and how to go about winning before it begins.  Silver's concept of fighting in "true time" is also a good way to determine if the technique is sound, regardless of weapon chosen.  So we might take from this that every movement should be made in a way that benefits you, and the time of the hands is faster than the time of the feet.  Any movement which does not benefit you, and any movement that breaks the rule of true time, should probably be discarded or reordered.  By that old logic, you would want to have your firearm up and shooting or able to shoot before moving your feet to get to cover or change the distance between you and the opponent.  Because hands and bullets move much faster than bodies and feet.  

For a more concrete example, there's no reason you couldn't use some of the old messer techniques in modern machete fighting:  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38sVdx7nzhQ

Because I have no use for one.

I like knives because they are useful.  Swords are going to hang on my wall and look cool (not that there's anything wrong with that, if that's your thing), but I've got no use for a sword.

They are cool.....don't get me wrong.....(and I've tossed the idea around plenty), but for the $$$, I can get something I'll actually use...and that's more "value" to me (IMHO only).

To add onto your commentary, I'm not carrying two main weapons.  If I'm in a situation where a sword is applicable, I'm going to be using a rifle.  I'm not carrying a rifle + sword + handgun + all the other stuff.

WTF this is not working

Screw it still  not working

People that use guns have a use for other things that double as weapons sometimes.
Knives
hatchets
machetes
hammers
etc
Swords have 1 use and 1 use only as a weapon. You really can't do anything else with a sword other than fight with it. Can't chop wood, clean a fish, whittle a handle for yer axe, start a fire etc.
In my eyes, learning to use a sword is completely and 100% impractical and I would be better served by learning to use a hatchet or machete as they have another use.

U


The things you listed a sword can't do is why I am looking into a Khukuri

They are pretty useful as well.

In terms of melee weapons isn't the sword the ONLY single use weapon ever made? You can't use them for anything but fighting.,

The sword, as a viable weapon really died with the invention of Sam Colt's revolving pistol.

It hung on as a military weapon mostly due to reluctance for upper class military officers to finally give up on the weapon that was the weapon of kings and nobility for over 5,000 years.  
The revolver was seen as a necessary weapon of war or a weapon for crude peasants, the sword the weapon of a gentleman.
As late as WWII no less a pistol man as Olympic shooter George Patton was still playing around with swords in an era of automatic pistols, submachine guns, and the early precursors of the assault rifle.  
This was simply due to the swords long affiliation as a weapon of the nobility.

By the Civil War, in America only the military was still using it, and few people in their right minds wanted to use a sword in a cavalry charge when they could be using a couple of revolvers or sawed off shotguns.
After the Civil War the sword in America totally disappeared from civilian use as anything other than a commemorative gift or award to be hung on a wall.
By 1860, when an American civilian reached for a weapon, it was a revolver, possibly a Bowie knife, but not a sword.

As a hobby item or a nostalgia item the sword is a nice collectible.
As a weapon, no one these days wants to stick someone, they want to put a few 5.56 or .45ACP rounds in him.
Nostalgia and military science fiction novels not withstanding, the sword is no longer a viable weapon anywhere around where guns can be found.

To paraphrase Star Wars, "The sword was a weapon for a less civilized age".

Thanks for the replies!  I think there's a lot of truth to them, but also some questionable assumptions.  The biggest one is the one I also used to believe--that the repeating handgun of the later 19th century made the sword useless baggage.  I think we tend to underestimate the sword in close combat and *overestimate* the handgun.  After a few years of training in HEMA swordsmanship I would much rather have a sword and buckler to counter a Tueller drill than a handgun.  The fact is that the old technology and tactics evolved to deal with guys trying to stab you with pointy things.  The handgun really didn't.  It's purely offensive, in the sense that having the handgun drawn or drawing it offers you no physical protection.  The only way to use it is to either scare the person off with it or shoot them.  With a sword or even better a sword and buckler, you can essentially nullify the knife's ability to cut you and you can be selective about what you cut or remove.  

And I think that may be one of the reasons we shed the weapons.  They are *less* civilized, as you say.  There's something less bloodthirsty about simply shooting bullets towards someone's center of mass as opposed to removing their forearm or cutting along the gill-line of the neck and half decapitating them.  But conversely, the very randomness of handgun bullets fired in a hurry makes handguns less viable as weapons in close quarters.  Heck, at WRESTING distance the handgun can actually become a greater threat to you.  Look at the recent LA shooting where a homeless man was shot because he kept trying to get an officer's handgun while they were grappling him.  Whereas with swords, wrestling on the blade is a key part of the art.

I would conclude that what firearms actually replaced were slings, javelins, crossbows and longbows.  They didn't really replace swords, they simply fell into the gap created by the abandonment of the blade.

How about a handgun and a buckler?  

Even after the sword disappeared, the Bowie knife was still a very popular and viable weapon in America so it wasn't a fear of cutting someone up violently that ended the sword as a viable weapon in America.

The sword fell from use for a number of reasons.
Originally only a wealthy member of the nobility could afford a good sword due to the cost of forging that much quality steel.
Second, only a member of the nobility or a professional soldier could afford to spend the years of constant practice becoming an expert with it.  Everyone else had to spend most of their time making a living with hard labor.
Last, when you got old, you were no longer up to a full-out fight with a younger and equally skilled man and movies not withstanding, few women stood a chance against a moderately good swordsman.

The pistol negated all that.
Driven by Sam Colt's desire to make his revolvers faster and better, the price also fell to the point that most anyone could afford one.
Other makers made lesser quality guns that anyone at all could afford to buy.  

It was not necessary to spend years becoming an expert.  With just a little practice most people could become good enough with a pistol to defend himself well.  
True, only some became masters of it, but for every Wild Bill or John Westley Hardin there were a LOT of ordinary people who could kill an opponent without spending years practicing.

Last, when you get old and can't move too well, the pistol still is the "Equalizer" that makes a small woman or old man the equal of a young tough.
One of the Three Musketeers at age 90 was not going to be a problem even if he could stand up and lift his sword.
I don't think anyone in his right mind would have wanted to shoot with Jeff Copper when he was an old man.

The sword is still THE classic arm of the earlier gentleman, king, or member of the nobility.  No one has much feeling for a mace or a pike thus the sword as a romantic weapon.
Romantic, but way outdated and no longer viable as an actual weapon.

People say that the Japanese are still effective fighters with swords.   In their society the sword is deeply ingrained to the point of being an almost religious artifact.
I ask people if they've ever seen Japanese swords hanging on the wall of old WWII vets.
I ask, where they think those swords came from?
They were picked up off the ground after Banzai charges.

The Japanese was waving his sword and screaming "Banzai" as he charged.
Our soldiers and Marines were quietly saying "M1 Garand".

and we all know how that turned out. kinda like French knights in armor going up against British archers. progress is progress.

I love samurai swords and certain sabers.   I laugh when people say there is no use for a sword and go buy a bowie knife.  The real Japanese tanto and Wakizashi are considered swords.   They can be concealed and are twice as sharp as most knives you will ever buy.  

If the shtf, a gun would be my last resort, because the ammo will eventually run out.

I don't much care for swords because I have no use for them.

They are ineffective against a person with a gun unless that person is within 20ish feet.  That's assuming that the sword is already drawn.

The firearm is:

1)  More effective

2)  Smaller

3)  Lighter

4)  Effective at a wider range of ranges

But I don't want to wrestle or be noble. I want to survive encounters with as little damage to me as possible. That's guns, then knives. Absolutely no use for a sword.

I love swords, don't get me wrong, but you're comparing apples to oranges.

Tanto and Wakizashi are effective weapons, but only in a narrow range of situations. And that's it.

A bowie knife is an effective weapon in the same exactly narrow situations as a Tanto of equal size, but can usually be used for utilitarian tasks as well. You won't see anyone doing chores with a Tanto.

This is the same reason why soldiers are ditching their dead-weight bayonets and opting to carry a smaller utility knife, instead. They do 1000% more prying and opening MRE's than they do stabbing enemies.

Hell, even on a historic basis, the sword was never the preferred weapon. It was the sidearm to the spear, because reach is a huge advantage that you take when you can. And the spears weren't raised until after your archers did their damndest to thin the heard.

Swords, while interesting and fun, weren't the center of combat like we see in the movies. They were mostly a symbol of the nobility. It was the last thing drawn in battle, even if it was the first thing drawn when an honorable samurai needed to behead a peasant who didn't bow far enough.

because swords come in taped boxes

honestly gun guys often have little interest in knives and visa versa. big snow nailed the mentality above.

then theres budget. both can be expensive hobbies.

then there is the "mall ninja " stereotype.  I controlled my buying habits by only buying bayonets now that that's done I try to keep to tanto blades only.

Kudzu doesn't grow this far North.

Yet.

When it does I will study Kurosawa films and wield dual swords.

I have two with 11-12" blades. Very useful and multipurpose. Still want a sword though.

it's the tape

I'd rather have an AR-15.

I could kill the bad guy at 21 feet and his buddy at 300 yards.

I find bladed weapons fascinating,  from knives to swords to spears.  If I was stupid rich like those people in the commercials I would have a cool collection!

I can afford, and have room for knives so that's what I've accumulated. I wish I knew someone with an authentic sword collection,  I would love to finger them.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

Ew. Not me. People with sword collections often have terrible hygiene.

eta: I'm all about the littleness and practicality.



The big one:



shoot. That's supposed to be a Counter Tac 2

I am an Iiado practitioner. I like swords. I also like firearms. The advantage to a sword is that it never runs out of ammo. Massive wounds can be created with some skill that do not require much sound and will not slow down the weilder. Yes, distance will be a problem. The long sword of old, was used best on horseback. Swords fell out of favor as you just couldn't carry your gear and add a sword to it as well as training and discipline required. Just not enough time. At some time you will run out of ammo. Then you have a "stick" or a "hammer", then what?

In what context would you be running out of ammo and transition to a sword though? Want quiet? Get a can. Distance and portability trump all that except in the case of specific fantasy scenarios. That's what bothers me the most about swords. The fantasy element.  That's where my sword hate comes from.

OP......might want to look in to L.A.R.P.

Probably the best use for a sword in 2015.

LOL

I am not into fantasy here. I was giving examples of use. In WW1 &WW2,, sharpened shovels were used in hand to hand combat in trenches. Was that fantasy? A sharpened tool is just that, another tool. It is very easy to run out of ammo as anyone in combat knows. Trigger control and conservation of ammo becomes critical. Stores selling ammo just around the corner don't happen. "Cans" need to be cleaned out as the effectiveness dimishes after time. And really, they aren't silent. I would never suggest that a guy carry a sword unless he has a good training with it. An AR? Aren't they made of aluminum? One chop with a good blade in the hand of a practitioner and it would be useless. The current weapon groups do not take into acount forces using them as striking weapons. Meh. A gun guy wanna use his gun, sword guy wanna use his sword. I am neither.

As a fighting discipline, I think there is value as most training can improve your hand-eye coordination, reflexes, body control, and balance and understand the value of leverage.  I just really question the utility of a sword on the modern battlefield or added to the modern combat load.  I would be much more effective with the same weight of ammo than the weight of the sword.

Still, I do like swords.  I have a couple of more modern “short swords”, but I truly consider them tools and not dedicated fighting weapons.  What I do find somewhat ironic is that other implements of war have transitioned successfully to today’s modern firearms.  The axe and tomahawk have been quite successful from the marketing standpoint. Even as a tool and weapon, they are often called a “breaching” tool and find their way into some circles.  I also think bayonets continue to hold a certain psychological value.  I find it also ironic that the bayonet on the end of the shotgun or rifle get more attention than the muzzle…that psychological value is more important as a deterrent than an actual weapon.

Long knives don’t always offer much better utility than a sword, but they are more compact, lighter and easier to carry than a longer piece of steel.  Space and distance are often the detractors for a sword or long knife; however, there are techniques to use such tools in close quarters I just don’t think they are optimal.  With that said, I know some CCW courses have shown that a man with a knife in hand can close the distance of 21 feet before the concealed gun can be cleared and put into action.  Seeing it firsthand shows another aspect even though I’m not sure it’s relevant for supporting sword use in a defensive or combative environment.  



I do like swords, especially the short-sword variety and they make clearing briers and vines much more fun.  However, I just can't support their value outside of use as a machete-type tool than a viable defensive or combat weapon.  The bladed tools I actually use are smaller and designed to draw in tight confines or in grappling proximity; I want to quickly stab or slash so I can create distance and draw my pistol or put my rifle into action.  Large pieces of sharpened steel will always have a place in our culture…I actually think it’s something genetic; gun and knife (or sword) are just great combinations weather on the battlefield, hunting or working around the homestead.  

ROCK6

To each their own. It just seems really far-fetched to me. Machetes yes, knives, yes, swords no.

I guess maybe you could use it as a meat tenderizer?

 
Along with a whole slew of other medieval weapons.

I like swords, and own some training ones as well as a cheap (but tank-like) cutlass and some big knives, but I can't justify buying a fancy sword when the same money could buy a nice gun that I can actually carry and use.

You can carry firearms in California legally?

+1 to the get both.  A good short sword can do a lot if used and cared for properly. It is a good bit of weight but you can't beat the reload time. Each have their uses and why wouldn't you want to learn both? Yes you can't spend the years to be an expert but how much better than an opponent would you have to be, as most would be untrained.  just my 2 cents

Get a smatchet and be done with it.  I'm disappointed that the quality mass-manufacturers aren't producing them.  The Cold Steel version is a shame and for some reason Ka-Bar and Ontario think the kukri is a more worthy item.  The smatchet is much better balanced and can be used for stabbing.
I've got the Boker version in my get-home-bag.

Swords are an interesting bit of history and well-crafted ones are a thing of beauty.  If you have the time and opportunity, it can add some interesting variety to your martial arts training.  As for practical self-defense, distance is your friend.  In the courts of law and public opinion, you'll be less demonized if you perforate your opponent with lead rather than slicing and dicing with a sword.

Welcome to ARFCOM!

"Smatchet!!!!"

Other than wall-hanging or backyard choppy-stabby-slashy fantasies against cardboard targets, I can't think of much use for a sword that couldn't be better served by a handgun or carbine.

They're fun to look at, and I've played around with a few decent swords here and there, but time has marched on. As I recall, it was guns that really put ninjas and all that other shit out of business.

Even the big bayonets and combat knives are more of an encumbrance than a decent small field knife and a Leatherman.

Countries and government throughout history have fallen.     Entire civilizations have fallen apart.   If we do get to a point in which we are living more like we did in the 1700's,  then a sword would be great.     Has that ever happened, in the 1900's?   Yes, it  has happened in natural disasters and in military conflicts.    The 1800's saw  the rise of industrialization.   Trains came to power.    WW I, with the advent of the automobile  (and the birth of armored vehicles) saw the death of the horse calvary.      Military conflicts and natural disasters destroy supply lines.    No ammo,no food, no fuel.    These factors would likely also just about eliminate  the common use of  aircraft.   While a gun and suppressor would be great, especially when hunting, as drawing the attention of other people would be  concern,  a sword could be a very valuable asset, as would a traditional recurve bow.

While some would regulate such ideas to fantasy, the reality is that these nightmares have happened in the 1900's .    

Still, while a sword is in fact a very practical weapon when the use of a firearm may be limited, the use and possession is just as likely to be limited.     It is well documented that rulers have banded broadheads in archery and the possession of swords.   Feudal rulers did not allow such.     In Japan, it could cost the life of an entire family.   Try owning a sword in parts of Europe today.

Many here have weapons valued over $3K with little thought.    A battle rifle with their choice trigger and rails,  $1,500 +.   Good glass, $1K  or more.    A can for a rifle cartridge,  $1K .   This is not uncommon here.     Throw in nigh observation devices, which start at $1.5k to over $6K.    Add to this that  transferable  full auto H&K and M16/M4 rifles  run around $25K.     None of this includes the countless stacks of ammo, body armor, custom knives,   and high end pistols at $2K a piece and shotguns found on this site.      Beyond that , many here keep gold, silver, and jewels in their safes.  

Some here own multiple properties including bug out locations with fully stocked cabins.    Many here at least have their primary residence prepared for emergencies with stocks of fuel, propane,  generators, and multiple vehicles.    We saw this with the better prepared people following Katrina.   Some took it as a joke at first.     Then there were those who were wise and not so foolish.    

Obviously,  finding households here with  $100K  and more  invested in  self preservation is no great challenge.          

Given all of this, it certainly is not unreasonable that some would also hedge their bets and put a little money into owning and using a quality fighting sword.  

None of this is fantasy.   Much of this does involve nightmares.  These are the facts of the matter.   Belittling those who are interested in real swords is  the same as the libtard belittling those who own NFA items.    It is just wrong to behave as such.      

Swords were used well past the Civil War era by cavalry units, stretching into WWI. While not nearly as effective as firearms they still struck fear into the hearts of charged infantrymen.

I was an iaido practitioner and find the general history of swords very interesting, just like firearms. In fact, I have several firearms from the 1800s many of you would find impractical. To me, I just enjoy the history and love collecting pieces of military history, edged or not.

OL - TLDR, but this is a gun forum, so it's like going on a motorcycle forum and saying "why no love for bicycles?"

Besides...swords are for gaylords!

Uma Therman and Darryl Hanna did pretty good with them in Kill Bill II

My handgun is for close encounters.  I can't conceal a sword.



I can't throw a sword nearly as far as I can shoot a rifle bullet.



I have two swords, a Chen Katana and an Albion Mercenary.  Both are cool, and neat, and look good on display.



But in practical terms they are useless unless the zombies come, and they are attracted by gunfire.



Swords are fantasy totems - nothing more.

...because you never bring a knife (even a big one) to a gun fight

Define "Cool Collection".  

Machetes are specialized short swords. So a sword is not so far fetched. (Note: this is the "Blade" forum of "Armory"AR15.com so there might be questions about swords in it. Swords are Arms). The things I am refering to in here are not Mall Ninja stuff and there were such things as a sniper taken out with a longbow in WW2...the same person carried a scottish sword and killed several german soldiers with it. The FBI says that within 30 feet radius, an agent/officer must have their firearm at least at low ready with safety off when dealing with a knife (or other weapon) weilding suspect. That is because a healthy young male can clear the 30 feet in under a second and officers are not trained for quick draw. This is based on real world statistics. A 1 inch deep wound channel, 28 inches long is about 4-500 stitches...and that is just a common utility knife slash. A guy doesn't die right away from a gunshot unless it is a brainstem shot. (Also based on LEO and military statistics). You shoot him 2x in body mass and he cuts you with his steak knife 2x. You both may bleed to death. In my home, I would use whatever is available. Short, closed in areas with cover are perfect for non firearms.

I think swords are really interesting but I'm more of a fan of axes. They serve more roles and can be used in a hacking manner.

Swords are cool, and training in sword fighting probably has good physical conditioning and other value.

But actually using a sword in modern combat? 100% pure fantasy. It's simply not a good weapon these days. Sure, you can find a story of people using them, but there have been Taliban killed with sandbags and machine gun bipods. Does that mean anyone should train in lethal applications of sandbags? No.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

This little girl like swords.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEjGQB9BKWA

A sharpened shovel can fulfill multiple roles


Can you dig a hole with a sword?

Even bayonets can fulfill multiple role,and aren't as big as a sword

"An AR? Aren't they made of aluminum? One chop with a good blade in the hand of a practitioner and it would be useless"


Uhh, yeah, no


You are clearly in a fantasy