Size Does Not Matter with Thrusting Weapons
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 23 ส.ค. 2024
- Some say 4 inches is enough. Sure, extra REACH is useful, but when it comes to penetration, extra size does not really matter.
▼3 extra EXCLUSIVE videos each month on PATREON, which make this channel possible:
/ scholagladiatoria
▼Facebook & Twitter updates, info, memes and fun:
/ historicalfencing
/ scholagladiato1
▼Schola Gladiatoria HEMA - sword fighting classes in the UK:
www.swordfight...
▼Matt Easton's website & Pinterest:
www.matt-easto...
www.pinterest....
▼Easton Antique Arms - antique swords for sale:
www.antique-sw...
#knife #martialarts #dagger
Sending this video to my wife and her boyfriend, thanks Matt!
Thanks, I just received it, we hope you're doing well.
@@scholagladiatoria🤣🤣🤣🤣
Brutality!
Hahahaha
@@scholagladiatoria eviscerated with WORDS ALONE
"Remember guys, 3 inches is magnum."
- Garand Thumb 2023
lol
Flanel-Daddy has spoken.
Mike is a fraud. Coworkers called him a lying POS. Faked a neck injury to avoid going to Korea and getting out of JTAC school. He was never SOF and never deployed in any capacity. Yet, told people he “got shot in a plate and saved people with CAS.”
Holy shit I thought I was the only one who still used this quote, let alone remember it in the original context. 😂
A 6 minute video is basically a youtube short for Matt
How I long for the days when TH-cam videos averaged at under 10 minutes. These days now, every TH-camr wants to make a documentary-length video of about 40 minutes and more.
It has become ridiculous; like, we only have so much free time in a day, and these people want to monopolize on it.
I like them long and short both. 😁
The length doesn't matter!
Tl;dr: stabbing requires 3”
Anything bigger you can do more damage with slashing. I;e: a machete
Hey! You can do a lot with 3 inches.
I suppose that's why spear heads are usually so short.
Indeed - though an interesting follow up video would be looking at why some spear heads are long. In fact, I'll go and do that now, thanks!
@@scholagladiatoria One possible reason would be to keep someone from easily grabbing the shaft just behind the spear head. With a longer spear blade you'd be more likely to grab the sharp edge and flinch away in reaction. Likewise with longer daggers and knives like the dirk or the bowie it's harder to grab the other person's hand.
Also cutting capability, as you cut with about center of percussion.
@@silverjohn6037 You're too late. He's already off doing another video. The man just loves his work.
@@scholagladiatoria Just using any excuse to play with your spear now!
(Size Does Not Matter with Thrusting Weapons)
"I challenge you to a duel sir!" *draws rapier.*
Me: *pulls out thumb tack* "I accept your challenge"
Is this innuendo? Or..........🤣
@@MrBottlecapBill 😉
@@JT_Soul To be fair pikes have really long shafts, the tip may be small, but the shaft is long, robust and ridged, this aids in penetration.
@@JT_Soul You're good mate, I just couldn't pass up a opportunity for more innuendos lol.
Good thing duels are not a thing anymore, lol. Sort of. : >
For context: a bullet is a thrusting weapon. We have just delegated the thrusting to a machine.
It's also blunt force trauma, which is why it breaks bones and ruptures adjacent organs
not really, depending on energy, jacket design, angle and place of impact they produce: hydrostatic shock, cavitation, exit would clearing a path for blood to drain, fractures, tumbling/fragmentation, deformation, any combination of the above. A blade cuts.
@gallowsongs Everything you just described is just as applicable to any number of pointy weapons with serrations, blood channels, triangular blades etc.
@@koncorde It isn't. Trauma comes in many forms, and has differing effects especially on the human body. Bullets fired from rifles have their own added trauma that differs from the effects from slashing and stabbing weapons. Your comments are ill-informed.
The most pedantic replies I've seen in a bit. Guys, a bullet is a thrusting weapon in the sense it performs a thrusting action, which then goes through the target. "um aktually bullets have 3 centimeters of different trauma" doesn't really matter and serve any purpose to mention because thrusting isn't defined by the type of damage inflicted. Could thrust into someone with a pencil of all things.
Matt giving off that small blade energy
Yeah but he can do more with 3 inches than you can do with a whole sword 😁
He could learn a thing or two from Shad 'Big Stick Energy!' iversity 😂
@@ThatGuy182545 he's got about as much fight in him as an asparagus stalk and would be utterly terrified if faced with a real mortal threat
The point of length in a thrusting sword isn't more penetration, it's more REACH. You get a long sword so you can stab from a safer distance.
Yes, that matters as a combat weapon, but as an assault implement being longer doesn't make it more dangerous.
@@Ninjamanhammer Really? You don’t think it would be easier to defend yourself against a Swiss army knife than a rapier?
@@TheGreatAmphibian If you've got nothing you're dead either way, with the rapier you can maybe get in and grapple.
Either way that's not the point of this video.
@@TheGreatAmphibian Depends on how you define "defend yourself". The swiss army knife is going to be a lot easier to conceal and the rapier is going to be clunkier to chase with if you turn tail and run.
@@Ninjamanhammer Ok: you think facing a Swiss Army knife is certain death and that you don’t stand any chance at all of wrestling it from someone, or knocking the deadly attacker out with a convenient stool, blocking them with a rucksack, etc. In which case, yes, a sak, or even a hairpin, probably is as dangerous to you as a nuclear weapon…
Spinal Tap logic: "My sword is longer so it stabs deeper". -Right, but the human body is still only so thick, so you can only stab it so deeply until you poke through the other side. "But my longer sword stabs deeper than your shorter sword, its longer"
Most thrusting weapon blades get wider at the hilt, so the wound gets wider the further in you stab.
Unless your target is completely stationary, there will be sawing/slicing action that take place along the edge of the blade as it's being thrusted in,(or pulled out), that contributes to widening the wound even if the blade is straight.
(Wider wounds bleed faster)
Just as it is difficult/impossible to draw a very long sword from a back scabbard, or even from your hip if it's a very, very long sword,(nodachi/zweihander), it can also be very difficult/impossible to remove the sword from your body, and you may be effectively stuck.
People have already mentioned the reach advantage.
If more than one person is blocking your way thru a door, (all bunched up) you can stab thru multiple people from a single thrust.
The guy behind the first may not expect a sword to suddenly protrude from his buddy's back.
@@user-qs3pb1uz3p i know right! longer swords are better because they are longer! they stab more!
@@beepboop204 * they stab worse.
These swords go up to 11!
@@user-qs3pb1uz3p sure, next thing you are gonna tell me, is that i shouldnt water my crops with gatorade. electrolytes, bro
A Fairbairn Sykes is a remarkably beautiful thing.
I have an Applegate Fairbairn dagger. In combat it would be my first choice.
@willieboy3011 They look great in the flesh.
Oh, er........ well, you know what I mean.
so elegant - I want one!
It’s not about penetrating 20 inches, it’s about being able to have a greater reach than your enemy. That is why it is important to have a longer stabbing instrument.
Thats what an arrow is for
Yes, that's why pikes were popular.
I understand this reasoning...but it works against you in confined spaces.
(Reason why a lot of people had also a short weopon with them along the sword)
Exactly. More reach more chance to take a critical hit in fist place and to win
My mind is so dirty omg
Same conclusion I came up to when studying the kinds of combat knives people carry today. 6inches is right about the sweet spot but a lot of people carry Folding Knives which may be round 4inches. And while its for utility mostly, you can look up a clip of a Navy Seal eviscerating a Ballistic Gel Dummy with a Pocket Knife. If you're in shanking range then plunging a 4 inch or 10 inch blade wont make much of a difference.
The 4 inch blade would likely be much easier to remove than a 10 inch blade. I could see that being quite difficult to withdraw.
@goldenageofdinosaurs7192 that's an incredibly good point that needs to be made more of.
@@scholagladiatoria Having used boning knives, it’s pure bs. If a longer knife gets stuck and you don’t mind making a mess, you can lever it much more effectively.
@@TheGreatAmphibianthere's a big difference between processing game you already killed and fighting someone who hasn't killed yet. You might need to retrieve your blade for a second (or third) attempt and a shorter weapon could be better for that, I think.
@@dustyboots2693 What you think doesn’t matter. There is a physical thing called leverage. It’s higher on longer blades.
as my polish uncle who used to teach historical fencing to theatre actors would always tell me "never forget that a scalpel can cut, and can cut better than a kitchen knife or even a sword, its all about how you use the blade that matters, anyone can pick up a blade and swing it around like a stick, but it takes knowledge and patience to cut cleanly and accurately"
i took that to heart, practise 2 hours a day with my rapier even though i never have a reason to own one, keep my skills sharp and precise
Box cutter or stanley knife with a new blade is quite a weapon.
@@dashcammer4322 exactly
I admire that you practice your swordsmanship regularly
@@lukewilliams8548 dont know who said it but "None can destroy iron but its own rust can" if i dont practise i get rusty
Wtf are you going to do with a sword with a gun pointed at you.
You are correct Matt.
The length of a blade only gives you reach.
I've done a bit of reading about Spy's and Spy craft and one thing that's across the board is teaching the spy to use a knife and finding one at any meat market or store. One can get into bunches of trouble buying a gun but no one looks at you twice if you walk home with a chef knife.
The last 4 killings here where I live was all done with kitchen knives one of which the victim was completely disemboweled on mass transit. That's here in the US where you can get a gun.
And, at least in the US, you can buy a chef's knife at a dollar store.
the length also give you thrusting power, which may matter if you encounter something with armor or even just a really thick skin.
And in the US the news will almost never report on blade length. Only the type of blade used (pocket knife, kitchen knife, sword, etc)
And surprisingly, even in places where you can not only buy but also carry a gun, people still choose to be defenseless.
A knife is also silent, doesnt make noise and draws attention, and most people dont even notice they have been stabbed until very much later.
Width and profile, however, can have a significant effect on how serious a wound one can render; Both in terms of penetrating ability, where a narrower blade will likely encounter much less resistance, and so be more likely to puncture resistant clothing, and in terms of the size of the wound channel, where a wider blade can result in more tissue damage and blood loss. And yes, going out through the far side of your target can make for a quicker, more efficient kill, due to blood loss through two wounds rather than one. Ask any hunter, whether they use archery tackle or firearms.
Clearly this guy hasn't seen the actual effects of a knife on flesh
In combat I would take the narrow blade over the wide blade, in case the 'other' wears tough layers of cloths.
It happened before in combat, that the knife didn't go through the cloths...
Also with a Gurkha, stabbing(kukri) through the Taliban's cloths didn't work, he had to resort to chopping at the man's hands which did make the Taliban flee.
That's what I keep telling to my GF !
Yes, I keep telling her 3 inches is all you need to get the job done! But she never believes me! 😂
I keep telling her the same thing too.
Unfortunately I keep proving you wrong
hey, matt said it himself "our bodies aren't 20 inches deep, they're 10 inches deep, 5 is more than enough"...
I can't tell her anything over all the screaming.....
In Marine boot camp during bayonet training, our instructors "drove the point home" 🙂 that when thrusting with the bayonet, it was only necessary to go about three-inches into your enemies body. Later, while working as a paramedic and a police officer, I understood the anatomical aspects of this length of thrust. You can do a heck of a lot of damage with a three-inch knife, or a simple short thrust with a longer blade.
Absolutely correct, nobody in the military involved in actual knife fighting carries huge 80's Rambo knives.
Blades around 5 inches are way more used and useful.
Ka-Bar, the standard issue fighting/utility knife for the US Marines has a 7" blade.
7 inches will reach the heart of a big guy coming up under the ribcage, that's as big as a fighting knife needs to be. if you're going to go bigger you might as well have a short sword
Somebody stole my standard K-Bar, so I went to PX and got another one, but it's the smaller one and has the "tanto" style point.
Damn handy thing and has a 5" blade. Plenty enough for killing if need be.
Involved in knife fighting in the military😂 I hope you realize how cringey that sounds.
@@elmanitasdeplomo Are you dumb?
I would think, though, that a longer blade might offer some benefits in delivering blows from unusual angles. The torso isn't all that deep front to back, but if your thrust is coming from below (say, under the ribcage) or from the side, that extra length would translate into greater tissue disruption and a better chance to reach vital organs. I've tended to see that as part of the point of the longer blades on rondel daggers, for instance.
getting through the ribs can be a dice roll, a 7 inch blade will hit the heart of a big guy with a thrust under the ribcage. this is why most military daggers are sized the way they are
Rondel daggers in a war context need to get through mail and an arming doublet too. I've also seen techniques of them being braced against the forearm to block/deflect cuts, so extra length would protect more of the forearm.
@@victorro8760 Obviously the length has other benefits, I was just observing that a blade length over four inches does confer benefits to thrusts from odd angles. And in the case of armored fighting, since you're restricted in where you can bypass an opponent's defenses, that ability to strike deeply into an opponent's torso would likely be a consideration.
I'd think that even for a weapon designed to go under ribs, other than the first ~4" it doesn't really need to be that sharp, just edged rather than squared off; you're mostly just following the hole made by the front part of it, so you might even be able to get away with a serrated edge on the bottom few inches of blade for extra tissue disruption. But that's probably more complicated to manufacture and use than just making a 7" blade, even if it works, so why bother, I suppose.
Not to mention that somebody that is exceptionally layered in fat and muscle (clothing notwithstanding) have a natural resistance to blades hovering around 4 inches, you might want an extra inch or two in that case
But a politician told me....
He lies.. like all politicians
😂
That blunted toothpicks are lethal? 😂
@@Dennis-lp7xe You can tell because their lips were moving.
Thank you for the boost in confidence
The reality of the situation in my experience…what matters is how quickly you can draw it & put the point-(or edge, if you want to just injure to put an assailant into shock)-where you want it to go as effectively as possible.
Yup. The reason my favorite "bush knife", and the type i used to hang on my webbing in the Army is about 8" has *nothing* to do with it as a weapon.
It is 100% so it works better as a *chopper* if i have to take down smallish saplings or split firewood.
this was fairly brief, thank you Matt
There are some who assert the original knife used by Jim Bowie may have been a butcher's knife. Knives specifically designed for combat tend to be poor utility knives, too small, too narrow, generally unsuited to any purpose other than fighting. The US Kabar type knives were purposely designed to be useful, rather than as single purpose tools that would rarely be used. The Mark 1 US Navy deck knife, which was the direct ancestor of the Kabar, was heavy-bladed and often used for tasks like cooking, opening crates, cans, and such. The commando dagger was nearly useless for camp tasks.
Another origin for Bowie knife is repurposed file.
Finnish Defense Forces does not always provide bayonets, but each and every conscript gets their own puukko. Puukko means utility knife of traditional Finnish style. Many people have been killed with them so it definitely works as weapon.
@@vksasdgaming9472 Filipino Martial Arts is based around the fact they carry tools that can be used as weapons.
@@seamusesparza1943 Okinawan kobudo also is based on repurposed and/or weaponized tools. I think Filippino styles have bigger overlap in armed and unarmed methods than kobudo and karate have.
Everything can serve as weapon if desperate enough.
True, however it does matter in slashing attacks. That's why people tend to grab the big chef's knife, rather than the smaller paring knife. Bowie knives are big for a reason.
Sir Richard Francis Burton recommended that a bayonet be used with short "darting" stab so as to not bind up the weapon in an opponent's body.
Thanks Matt for putting a smile on my face. A good friend and mentor of mine went into Burma with General Merrill and was one of the lucky few to walk out in the end also. He always carried a locking folding knife and always said that in his experience that larger wasn't necessary. Both he and his fellow soldiers had found that, and a sharpened folding shovel was also a wonderful tool.
William Fairbairn said that after about 6 inches your pretty much stabbing air.
one thing you didnt mention, is even with a 3 inch or shorter blade, you likely still have more than enough reach to kill, because stab wounds, once the blade reaches the wider hilt/grip etc, they *compress* the flesh being stabbed.
So, a person may only have a 3 inch blade, but he may be able to make a 4 or 5 inch wound by stabbing hard enough to compress the flesh together.
You managed to persuade me: Let's ban kitchen knives.
Thank you and you are 100% correct.
(graphic content warning for below information)
I once worked a pretty brutal murder (as opposed, I'd say to a polite one?). 27 external stab wounds (many had multiple tracts). Most got heart and lungs. I was at the scene and autopsy. What appears to have been not a terribly long knife (certainly small enough to be easily concealed in brutal summer temperatures) went front to back well into the inside of the rear ribs. From the left side the heart and lungs were perforated numerous times as well. . For that matter, the stabs to the side were so hard, it broke several ribs and made a hole in the rib cage you could literally stick your (gloved) hand into - and that was just the blunt force, never mind how deeply that let the blade get. People think ribs stop the stab at blade length depth but remember, even in CPR one has to be mindful not to compress too hard lest one bruises the heart. Add some pointy bit of steel on the end and ... yep, beyond 3" or so it makes little difference.
Let the fight begin about size! 😁
A body is only about 10 inches deep? Apparently you've never seen Mississippians. It'd be more comparable to a milk cow than a normal human.
Agreed.
Many people are really overweight, and have thick , huge bodies in general.
A little more blade is better than a size that is so so in length.
Why risk it.
Even the Sfarziglia, a folding knife, was quite long.
Great video. A couple random points in no particular order. In the States as well the overwhelming majority of knife attacks are done with kitchen knives. A cop once told me that home burglars in his area were less likely to carry weapons to the scene of a crime because they could catch heavier charges for being caught with a weapon, so upon entering a home most would make a b-line for the kitchen and pick up a knife there in case they were interrupted, and then ditch it when they left the home. A retired cop of 30+ years told me he couldn’t remember the last time he’d arrested a hooker who DIDN’T have a stolen restaurant steak knife in her purse. Flesh compresses when you hit/push on it, so a 3” blade can make a 3”+ deep wound. And in S.E. Asian martial arts like Silat that are heavily blade-oriented AND focus a lot on grappling range a shorter blade is usually preferred for it’s maneuverability and the fact that it’s less likely to over penetrate and become a risk to you as it exits the other side of the body.
I really wish that you could have shared this knowledge at the Apple River stabbing trial that happened this month Matt. Dude killed one person, gutted another, and stabbed a total of five people with a very small folding knife- probably 3 inch blade max. The saying "it's not the meat it's the motion" is true in many instances.
The obverse is also true: I always carry a Victorinox Rambler (with its impressive 3.5cm blade) on my key chain. Naturally I forgot to check it in before a flight, and security was not pleased. I had to do whatever they told me to do while asking myself "do they expect me to slowly carve someone to death?"
Remember planes have been successfully hijacked with boxcutters--1" blade.
@@thekaxmax Yes, and they didn't make it on the plane via any of the terrorist passengers either, but instead were taped under seats by benign-appearing female terrorists working as cleaning crews. It was part of their cleaning gear. Scrape a little gum...and tape the box cutters under the right seats. Did they stop having certain people clean planes? No, they started giving 90 year old grannies in wheelchairs body cavity searches as "Security Theater".
@@thekaxmax First, a box cutter is a much more robust blade. The Rambler's blade is about 5mm x 0.6mm.
Second, that ship has sailed, and it is unlikely to ever work again.
Mind you, I'm not proposing to allow knives on planes, I'm just pointing out that it would be very difficult to do serious harm to an able adult defending herself.
Been there done that, grrr...
@@korbendallas5318 the point tands; present security is why it's not going to happen again.
To make the point more precise: in case of hidden attacks (as we see them nowadays), when usually someone shouting something combined with "Akbar", it doesn't matter much how long his blade was, because 4-5 inches are lethal enough to stab someone to death. IN case of fighting, of dueling and so on, size does of course matter a lot because of reach ... THATS'S a knife.
Fortunaltely in Germany we have very inconsistent knife laws. So it's perfectly legal to carry a 22 cm locking blade, as long as it's not a one-hand opening one. That speaks vor my Navaja pocket sword... just in case .
Yeah in Germany there was another case of such an ayatollah madman killing a policeman with the knife. The officer wasn't even attacking him but holding a guy who was not a fan of the Islam. I'm not either btw. It's not the first case of this happening in Europe.
Islam=peace?
No, it's not.
Fun fact, in some place 3 inches is the max lenght of a blade to be legally carried... but if you are smart you put those 3 inches on a longer shaft....and perhaps have a 90° mounting angle for the knife...
Another interesting thing that a lot of people (especially in the UK, where gun have reached mythical status) don't realize, is that the survivability of a stab wound vs a gunshot wound from a handgun are actually quite similar.
A lot of people seem to think a handgun is like a magic death ray, and are surprised to learn that they are nowhere near as deadly as you might think.
Conversely, a stab wound from a large kitchen knife is actually a lot more deadly that most people realize.
Up close (which is how a lot of violent crime happens) it doesn't really matter if your assailant has a knife or a gun.
With both bullets and knives, it's more about where you are hit then about how much.
It's not just the UK. It's a pretty common line of reasoning in the US too.
I was reading a study some years ago and was pretty surprised to find that stabbings have a higher lethality rate than all shootings lumped together with some *very* interesting caveats.
In situations where any random stabbing *and* any random shooting both receive rapid medical care, the stabbings are more survivable overall.
Here's the really interesting and relevant part though - The criminal element is *far* less likely to seek medical care if they get stabbed than if they get shot. They tend to reason that being alive in prison is better than dying, but they underestimate the lethality of a stab wound.
If I remember correctly, in the US, the survival rate for all shootings lumped together was something like 6.5 out of 8. And that includes situations where the person got hit multiple times by any and all calibers in any location. If you restrict it to handgun calibers, the survival rate was somewhat better.
@@ColonelSandersLite That's very interesting indeed. It's misunderstandings like this that lead to poor legislation.
I've noticed that when people talk about mass stabbings, they tend to concentrate on what caused a person to do a thing like that. When it's a mass shooting, people talk about it as if the gun was to blame.
Maybe if they appreciated the similar lethality between the two weapons, they would act less emotionally, and we might be able to address the actual causes of these types of crimes.
The reason I singled out the UK is that guns, especially handguns, are viewed as almost mythical weapons there.
In the US, most people have at least seen a gun, or know someone who shoots etc.
In the UK, a lot of people don't even realize it's legal to own guns. Literally their entire understanding of guns is from what they have seen in movies.
I prefer a 8” or so screwdriver, legal everywhere. Handle wipes down clean,
Something this makes me wonder though is why Rondel/Bollock Daggers tended to be so long. By modern standards they are more short stabby swords with footlong blades. Obviously I agree with your logic, just be a good topic to discuss. Perhaps they made them large enough to use for parries in shit-luck situations?
Can’t wait to tell my ex she was wrong 😎
Good point, but not accurate enough. Longer blade has it's advantage in stabbing and here is why. Stabbing a person isn't as easy as shown in the films, so you don't always get to stab wherever you want however you want. Sometimes you must stab from the side or at point angle, and this is where longer blade will get deeper and make more damage. If for example you wanna stab someone who wears stabproof vest, you have a gap in his lower belly which you can stab upword. In this angle your short blade will not always be enough to go deep and hit a vital organ that will incapacitate an attacker.
This also the case with thick clothing. If you stab someone with very thick clothing your blade will never go all the way in the body (the handguard will eventually squize against the clothing), so even if you had knife with 5 inch blade, the clothing may shorten the penetration by an inch. That's why you need a little longer blade.
Besides, longer blade means you can stab from longer range.
If longer blade would be useless in stabbing there was no need for longswords, arming swords, rapiers and smallswords, and defenately bayonets in war. They were used mainly for stabbing, not cutting. While they could cut soft targets, it was extremely hard, even impossible, to cut throgh armor or cut throgh gaps.
On a related note, I suspect that's why the thrusting tip on a gladius is about 3-4 inches long. Once you've thrust up to the point where the blade widens, that's really all you need to kill someone.
if you penetrate further like un the guts the wound channel is going to be way larger
"His inch is deadly!"
-Baby Cakes
Shoot, I missed this video when it was first posted.
At any rate, I'd like to draw your attention to a recent self-defense trial in the US that illustrates your point about small blades perfectly. If you look up "Apple River Trial", you'll see the case. The weapon involved in this situation was a quite ordinary ~3.5" everyday-carry folding knife, and one of the "victims" in question was literally *disemboweled*, and not in some Hannibal Lecter scenario. Just a very brief stab-and-cut by an untrained user in a hectic environment was enough to do it.
"You can only have a two inch blade in Europe."
**Laughs in American while legally carrying a sword**
*Laughs in not shot*
I DO carry a sword! Vermont is a great state to live in….I can wear one of my swords to the local weed store.
Lol
You can carry swords in Europe. Just not in england...
Europe is not one single law system. In my place there are even less laws than in many states. You can carry everything, no matter the shape, opening metod, size, as long as it looks like bladed weaphon.
@@filfil9902 But not in many places. If I had to guess, I'd say you're from the Czech Republic, right? If so, then your neighbor with the worst of the worst weapon laws salutes you.
@@annatar2186not czech Republic, but its eastern neighbor. Im assumming you live in germany? Yea you have it pretty shitty, not only in carrying but also in enjoying the outdoors, wild camping and stuff.
But any extra length, allows easier reaching the target... hey?
That's probably why he mentioned reach three times in the video. 😊
@@michaeljdauben Yes, but it also makes the entire clip/video mute & pointless.
I mean, I thought it was pretty clear that the point of a longer stabby stick was keeping the opponent from both hurting your hand and any type of counter-stabbing. My safety natters too.
fairbairn sykes point used to 'crumble' when hitting a bone. Then the blade would snag in the skin and clothes on the way out. So soldiers used to round up the tip.
They just want everyone disarmed. It's not about safety
Great video, and Wow! comes in under 7 minutes!
Now you've told your government to ban all kitchen knives over 2 inches with pointy tip.
One could argue that the width of a blade would have more effect on the severity of a stab wound since something like a Bowie knife or butcher knife would produce a much wider wound than a stiletto or ice pick.
Yes, and it's also important to note that something like a bowie knife is *also* going to be much more effective at slashing and chopping than something like the ww2 commando stilettos.
Bowie knife is also meant to be a *tool*. Not much utility in a stiletto.
But yeah, to some degree, all reasonable knives are pretty capable of doing a whole lot of damage in a fight. Plenty of people getting killed out there with kitchen knives.
@@ColonelSandersLite
The Bowie is more of a general useful tool than a stiletto dagger, that's for sure.
But a Bowie is still weapon first, that's what the clip point is for. Stabbing. It's not the best wood chopper, given the clip point. Machete's are way more effective, axes/hatchets also.
You didn't see a Mors Kochanski type of guy using a Bowie when in the woods. It's axe and knife of average size, often a 4 inch blade.
Also a Bowie, as the Confederates carried, are quite large and cumbersome to carry(didn't they drop those at a certain point, because of that very reason). A stiletto dagger as the SAS in North Africa carried, the F-S dagger, is hardly noticeable. It's that light and small.
That is NOT what she said
As a Toronto paramedic, I can confirm this. We got called for an 18 year old male who had been stabbed once. He had a very small hole in his left upper back, but was walking and talking on scene and appeared unaffected. He deteriorated rapidly en route to the trauma centre, and by the time we were pulling in he went into cardiac arrest. When they opened his chest with a resuscitative thoracotomy, most of his blood volume came spilling out of his chest cavity onto the floor of the trauma room. Don't fuck with knives or with people who have knives!
wow, good job it wasn't longer
did he make it?
@@abhorrentabsconder No
@@joshyaks well, as expected i suppose. damn.
When you look at bayonets the old very long ones were not to stab further through but to reach up to a man on a horse. Once cavalry charges were less likely with the magazine rifle and them machine gun the blades shrank to enough to pass through a webbing strap, greatcoat and woollen uniform and get the key 4” into play.
I agree with everything you said. And that is why a longer blade is more dangerous, because the benefit is the attacker can get at you from a farther distance. The depth of penetration is not of consequence of the length. But the fact they don't have to get as close to you DOES make it more dangerous.
Size of a thrusting weapon matters, because otherwise nobody would need a rapier instead of a rondel dagger. The size of a weapon is the difference whether the opponent's parry hits your blade, or cuts off your arm.
Yeah, it's really a matter of reach rather than damage.
The video talks about how size does not matter for LETHALITY, i.e. grievousness of the wound. It's, of course, crucial otherwise. The title of the video is confusing.
he literally said that in the video lol
The Spartans had a Xiphos(sword), with a 12 inch blade for close combat.
That was considered short.
So yes, in history, when blades counted most , there were mostly larger knives .
Pugio another example.
No 4 inch blades. Maybe some. Can't remember I've seen them. Not saying they don't exist.
But they were not playing back then, and used what was useful and very effective.
You need enough blade to reach a vital organ. Past that, yeah, it's mostly just increasing reach which ain't nothing.
For defensive knives, about 6" is as large as I go unless it's a camp/field blade.
I can now die a happy man now that I've seen the impossible: Matt Easton making a pearl-clutching reference :)
Statistically, in Matt's house there are also far more swords than humans. Scary thought!
Great video, I hope you will have been Matt Easton in many videos to come.
And they sure will come, as he won't need many more inches anyway! 😌
"Fundamentally you don't need 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 20 inches! It makes no difference what so ever!"
Matt Easton innuendo at its finest.
Great points, not a pun.
Shorter bades can also stab deeper if not encountering bone. A 3 inch blade could cut into an abdomen quite deeply. The risk of stabbing through, and possibly into oneself is also reduced by having a shorter blade AND the carrying of a shorter blade makes draw, return, and carry placement easier.
As you stated, longer's advantange is the extended distance for delivering the wound.
Agreed, Matt. The 20 inch blade is to keep the other guy with the 4 inch blade a little further away. A box cutter has a blade that is long enough for mortal injury.
it's as if you ignore what you said later at 3:48. Size matters because _reach matters._
true, especially if you're aiming for the heart from another angle, say under the rub cage...
So the size when actually stabbing doesn't matter. However I would have to say that size does matter when it comes to the actual combat. Someone with a longsword has a better vantage than someone with a 6 inch dagger. When it comes to the stab wound itself I agree.
You can see a similar effect in how faster bullets can be less lethal than slower ones. A fast bullet can punch a relatively clean hole straight through the body without depositing much of its energy in tissue. A similar thing even happens with types of radiation exposure. The general rule is that the part of your weapon that comes out of the target's back is wasted.
The Romans, who warred constantly and killed lots of different enemies for hundreds of years, preferred their
24 inch long gladius short sword over their 36 inch long spatha long sword. The gladius
was perfect for close contact formation fighting. You could wield it faster, and because it was lighter you could fight longer. The Romans only used it to stab straight, usually in a small gap in their shield wall.
I absolutely agree that 4" is quite sufficient to be lethal, however the ability to completely penetrate the body increases the damage significantly, you have by doing so doubled the wound channel for blood to escape on both sides, not to mention increased the difficulty of medically addressing those wounds. (I'm an army combat medic)
I imagine width plays a role here. If I'm not mistaken, bow hunters are required to have broadheads of a certain width to increase damage for a cleaner kill.
Seems logical, distance from skin to vital organs or blood vessels = lethal. Even Devid Eddings knew it when he wrote The Tamuli.
What a nice Katzbalger.
Aside from reach, which you already stated as having relevance (also note bayonets are on the end of a rifle that gives you ~2ft of extra reach), I'd still argue additional penetration does still offer value. Sure, a 3-4 inch stab may be lethal, but not necessarily immediately lethal or immediately debilitating. More penetration means more likely the person is going to instantly collapse.
Also worth noting is that very few stabbing/thrusting weapons can only stab/thrust. Most have a cutting edge on them as well, and can be used to slash as well as stab.
In reality, length does matter.
Many have mentioned reach, but building on that, there's also the fact that the longer the blade, the further the target can be (and wider) whilst still being able to stab through them, rather than just barely touching them.
Also, with knives, think about a 1 inch blade vs a 7 inch blade. One will touch the heart easily in many cases.
The ShivWorks group in the US focus a lot on short blades, about 2.5 inches or less, for the reasons that they are quicker to draw, harder for someone to stop you from drawing, when used in a punching manner the tissue compresses some with impact causing wounds deeper in than the blade length would suggest, and fundamentally because the point is less about killing someone and more about making space to get them off you.
To be fair, a spear also allows the attacker to use the full strength of both arms and the momentum of the shaft to propel the point into the target, which increases the expected depth of penetration and hence lethality compared to a knife. But as you say, it's not about the length of the point or blade beyond a few inches.
Excellent! That needed to be said once and forever.👍
Surely the length of a thrusting weapon is to give advantage of reach rather than just penetrating distance?
I am reminded of a grim fact I heard on one of those "inside prison" shows. A CO was showing the crew a collection of shanks they had confiscated over the years and remarked that 2½ inches in, anywhere on the torso, head, or neck was a potentially fatal injury
Coincidentally I was reading today about someone in the UK who suffered multiple stabs to the face from a screw driver. If people are mad enough, anything is a weapon.
With a thumbnail like that I had to read the comments. Not dissappointed.
I always recall the murder from Tom Hanks movie “Turner And Hooch” where they killed the guys on the dock buy piercing up from behind through the the bottom of the lung. The blade if I remember correctly was a standard military knife of the 4.5 to 6 inch length.
It is not how deep, it is whether you can hit a vital organ or blood vessel. Most arteries are barely skin deep. In the movie reference above, getting under the ribs into a lung is actually a quite shallow wound but has deadly consequences.
Same principle with handguns. If the projectile, hollow point or fmj, doesn't hit something vital the victim will not immediately die. Also, why in the USA the FBI's standard for handguns is minimal 12 inches, that accounts for weird angles, size of target, clothing for example.
As Churchill said, any time you see anything big and working well, you want to take it over.
Knife atracks in the US almost never include details of blade length. Of it's a knife, it's described as a knife. If it's a sword, it's described as a sword. The wounds may be described differently between the two implements, stabbed vs. impaled.
In Oregon, USA, anything over 3.5 inches that locks has to be carried open, not concealed. However, a knife of any length may be carried in public. My own personal EDC knife is a 4.5 inche blade locking folder. It has a pocket clip that makes it legal to carry inside my pocket (the clip remains exposed). Oregon is _very_ liberal about bladed weapons.
Expat in Germany here:
Legal carry is 12cm blade, no flippers/one hand/autos/daggers/kerambits. Fixed blades are legal. A 12cm blade is quite significant.
Even in the old days with loose laws, the criminals and street tough everywhere did real work with razors and small hidden knives.
Good to know: synthetic jackets can be very hard to cut, so in winter a citizen is much better protected than they might expect from a criminal slashing attack.
You can carry pocket knives that can be opened with one hand of pretty much any length as long as they're not assisted and non-locking. Jörg Sprave uses that loophole for his pocket machete. I wouldn't do it though, it's basically the same childish "I can so I will" attitude that Americans who open carry AR15s have
It's like the girls have always told me, all my life: length isn't that important, but width matters a lot. 😅
This guy: "Size does not matter. Certainly not above 3 inches."
Pedantic me: "So it does matter!?"
He definitely knew what he was doing with the title. 😆
The title is a bit misleading, because the video is about knife length, which is irrelevant after a certain point as mentioned. Blade width however is much more relevant. A wide kitchen knife is much more likely to deliver a lethal stab than a screwdriver, because the width increases the chance of hitting something important and increases the amount of bleeding. Big wounds also close less well.
I first heard this from a certain Australian talking about RPG weapons. He pointed out that saying a dagger does less damage than a rapier or a spear makes no sense. A stab is a stab.
Size does matter. If the spear can “do it from farther away”, so too can a dagger especially when used in the reverse grip.
Perhaps this is why many historical examples of Rondel Daggers or Dirks have blade lengths of 10-13”. It’s not just penetrating the body and the armor, it’s reaching the target while hooking an opponent’s arm.
Years ago, when I was a member of a specialized unit on jail mutins and escape attempts, I interrogated a prisioner (a condemned killer) about a knife found in his cell. He answered me: "Sir, big knives are for idiots. The good ones are small and sharp pointed".
I don't usually comment on videos because your ones in particular are generally good quality, but this is a fairly misleading take. Yes, if in every case, 3 inches of blade has entered the body, then there is not much difference in how long the rest of the weapon is. However, it is pretty obvious that with a longer weapon there are far more opportunities to get that 3 inches into somewhere that will cause damage. The factors of reach and penetration are not independent of each other. I know you love context, but for some reason this video does not discuss any context at all. Of course in the vast majority of real life contexts, you would be able to penetrate that 3 inches more often and with less difficulty with a longer blade, which hopefully you would agree, matters. And I'm not saying longer is always more dangerous, but to say it doesn't have any effect on penetrating is disingenuous at best.
No way! In what context would you let someone approach with a large sword? Someone in a crowd can easily conceal a small sharp object.. See why you’re wrong?
Maybe suppose the defender only had a shield?
True, I think it was the Romans who said of the gladius; “better a 2” stab than a 6” slash.
You're 100% right also, if you are stabbed by a 3 in knife, the compression of your body from the force of stab can actually cut 6-9 inches deep. Basically the harder your hit the deeper the blade can go, even the rib cage can be compressed
They say the pen is mightier than the sword
But the pen makes no man stagger
No the dread of every king and lord
Is the fear of the unseen dagger
A wise lesson, Schlong Gladiator.
Ok, but if you stab 8" deep chances of hitting a major artery or organ are significantly higher than with only 4" of penetration, simply because you'll reach deeper into the body. You might miss everything important over the first 3-4" and clip something beyond that point.