Thread: Armed with a handgun in close quarters

if you wanted to strike your threat with your gun, (for me it would be a glock 19) which part would you hit with? the bottom of the grip ( mag plate ) the slide? what would you do that would deliver enough energy to effectively knock out, concuss or disable the threat if only for short period of time? Just wondering what you guys would do if you were in that position and made that decision. I fear if i were to hold a threat at gunpoint, that he wouldnt take me seriously ( i have a baby face :\ ) go for his arm or weapon, or try to charge at me, and i would be forced to take him down. thanks for the input.

Babyface or not, a weapon pointed at you is a huge intimidation factor. I have been told, by several LEO friends, that striking with a weapon is not a good idea. It makes a poor club and more often than not, damages the weapon in some way. So, take him down. Just my .02

At that point in a confrontation, I would neutralize the threat. Plain and simple.

If it gets to that point, pull the trigger! If for some reason you can't do that, anything goes. Bridge of the nose, throat strike, eye gouge, or anything else you can think of. Bite the SOB!

Originally Posted by Cougfan2

If it gets to that point, pull the trigger! If for some reason you can't do that, anything goes. Bridge of the nose, throat strike, eye gouge, or anything else you can think of. Bite the SOB!

Kick him in the "private" area!!!! At least if someone did that to me I would be down on the floor in a fetal position for a LONNNNNG time....

I am thinking round hose punch with the barrell/front of gun, or even a couple of good jabs to the face with the muzzel.

J/K

Gun makes a poor club.

especially a plastic-handled glock.

+1 on the roundhouse.

I would take the "Braced-Contact" approach.

Its been taught in many DT and firearm retention circles.

Right handed - while you're right hand is gripped on the gun, you reach over hand with your left hand, and place it just back of the muzzle. so your palm is on top of the slide. Your fingers are wrapped around the slide and frame and in some cases part of the trigger guard.
In this position its impossible to shoot yourself, as your arm can't bend to go in front of the muzzle.

From this position of solid firearm retention, you can punch forward with the muzzle, or even fire off a round. It'll induce a jam, just disengage from your suspect, do a quick tap-rack and you're ready to go with shot number next.

if push comes to punch, a nice solid stainless revolver would be the preferred tool for a non-firing press.

But, as someone just above said, by that time in a confrontation, perhaps relapsing to the firearm's original intended function would be the safest move. Unless the are were filled with about a twelve percent mix of natural gas and air... in that case, best NOT pull the trigger, or you'll end up ingniting rather a bit more than you would care to.

If you don't have a revolver, an all steel semiauto would be a enxt best choice.

I wouldn't be worried about striking with the gun. If the threat is advancing despite warnings, shoot it! If the threat is not advancing, retreat while issuing commands. That covers every available situation. The threat couldn't possibly have you backed in a corner, or he'd be shot already, right? Retreat to gain advantage, issue commands, and maintain control of the situation. By allowing him to force you into going hands on, you have allowed your opponent to control you, and thus, the situation.

I realize the above sounds condescending, but seriously, you shouldn't be using your gun to strike with unless you are out of bullets. The only place a strike with a handgun is going to have serious impact is the face, in which case we are right back to deadly force. Don't tickle the guy, stop the threat!

Beyond that, if you MUST, what Wichaca said.

i was thinking more of...lets say you heard something going on in your house on a different floor at 4 am, go downstairs and find someone down there rummaging through your stuff, your barefoot and carefully approching him to where you are right over him. i wouldnt feel comfortable putting him in a headlock or something, and what if he isnt alone, id want to incapacitate him and return to a ready state in case his partner(s) are nearby.
Obviously you cant just shoot him in the back. you would get homicide.

this scenario is based on multiple threats, at least one of which will not hesitate to harm you, and you come across one without being noticed and manage to get in within arms reach.

Im thinking i would prefer to knock him out, then tactically clear the house.

i dunno. i think of these things alot.

My question: why was the threat not already neutralized?

Using a gun in what is being described as a fist fight will undoubtedly lead to your sharing a cell with bubba and willie. Striking your opponent with the weapon defeats the purpose of the weapon, renders you to the role of agressor, possibly damages the weapon and pisses off the john law writing the after action report. Reholster and engage manually!!! Greydog.

Why carry a gun.If your not willing to use it your better off with out it .Throw the gun away and get a club.

Uhhh You have a gun.. If you have your gun out your intending to use it... If you wanna beat some *** get a baton.. Last time i checked shooting the threat is better then trying to beat him up

it was just a thought, i just wanted some input. i will look into those room clearing tactic videos, thanks everyone

I'd recommend some hand to hand training. I've recently done that and its already proven a great improvement/asset to me in terms of being prepared for a close encounter. Studying/Training on weapon retention will also be important. I agree with others here, striking with your weapon is a very last ditch option in a desperate situation where you lack other options (i.e. out of ammo).

Guns are ment for shooting, not for striking. The only contact I would ever use with a firearm is more of a push by extending your arms straight out and lunging forward to create distance from you and your attacker.

Then tap, rack, and assess to see if a shot (or more) is needed.

Guns are ment for shooting, not for striking.

No Butt Stroke? No pistol Whuppin'.....I knew I didn't like tupperware for some reason.....
Both my Great Grampa and my Grampa were small town police in rough resource extraction towns.......

Apparently a Bisley makes a great melon masher.....

Originally Posted by stonedkirby

i was thinking more of...lets say you heard something going on in your house on a different floor at 4 am, go downstairs and find someone down there rummaging through your stuff, your barefoot and carefully approching him to where you are right over him. i wouldnt feel comfortable putting him in a headlock or something, and what if he isnt alone, id want to incapacitate him and return to a ready state in case his partner(s) are nearby.
Obviously you cant just shoot him in the back. you would get homicide.

this scenario is based on multiple threats, at least one of which will not hesitate to harm you, and you come across one without being noticed and manage to get in within arms reach.

Im thinking i would prefer to knock him out, then tactically clear the house.

i dunno. i think of these things alot.

if that's all you want to do to him, leave the gun upstairs with your Wife, grab Junior's hickory stick baseball bat, and have at him. You don't need to get nearly as close to do him harm as you would with a pistol in hand.

BUT-- consider this: he is IN YOUR HOUSE, in the process of committing a felony. Shoot him and you may get run through a fine seive, but you will never have a jury convict for manslaughter.

I'd back myself into a corner with no other access, and where you have visual on the entire area, and, in a strong voice (I know, hard to do when the yellow liquid is running down your leg.... but try hard).. something like "freeze right there, I have a gun and WILL use it....." carry on from there. You remain far enough away he can't get at you, you maintain the element of surprise, and you have the clear upper hand in the force level category. You've gained total control over the situation and have not even touched him. In that situation, should he persist, attack, or even try to flee, you are within your right to fire... and should. Ask him if he's got a helper.... and where he is. Make sure he remains facing away from you, preferably face down on the floor, head away from you. In case he's brought a guest with him, keep yourself hunkered down behind or around something, so if Charlie comes round the corner into the room, you'll be able to see him, but he'll have a hard time finding you quickly. If he does show his ugly mug, give him a ration of commands as well, starting with the threat to shoot if he does't cooperate/

I'm not positive, but I seem to remember somethiing about Oregon being a "castle doctrine" state, don't know about Washignton. Castle Doctrine states that ANY intruder into your home is fair game, you do not have to flee or avoid, you can stand your ground and use any level of force you wish. You are also exempt from criminal and civil prosecution. Thus, anyone enters your home unwanted, his mere presence in your home gives you the freedom to deal with it how you choose... "the king is master of his castle" sort of thing. States that have enacted such laws have noticed a distinct drop in housebreakings....... thieves know their mere presence, if detected, puts the red dot right between their eyes, and next comes the perforation. They'd rather find other ways to steal.....