Hey, Jim!
JimHawkins wrote:
A lot of hyperbole going on.. The pussy remark re the .22 for one thing...
Some military rounds ain't much bigger than .22...
Exactamundo!!
So... Why in many cases do military folk prefer using 9mm rounds as opposed to more devastating "stopper" rounds? It of course depends upon the opponent, but...
Here are two scenarios.
- Three soldiers are fighting. One gets hit with a few 9 mm rounds, and starts bleeding.
- Three soldiers are fighting. One gets hit with a rather large "stopper" round, and dies rather quickly.
You are fighting these three soldiers. What is the better scenario?
Other than the fact that you can carry (and thus shoot) more 9 mm rounds to the battlefield, there is the human element. If your partner dies, you keep on fighting. If your partner is wounded and needs help, you stop fighting and help him out. So... By wounding one soldier, you potentially take out three. By killing one, you still have to deal with the other two.
There are exceptions to this rule of thumb. Now and then you face either a drug-crazed or otherwise fanatical and determined enemy. Then you want the stopper rounds. Such was the case in isolated battles on the western frontier of this country, as related to my dad by his grandfather. Such was also the case in the Spanish-American war, hence the invention of the Colt .45.
Jim wrote:
Anyone see that tape of hoodlums going around and doing drive-by paint ball shootings? Folks completely terrified, thinking they'd been shot and, yes, even falling over, falling off bicycles, clutching their wounds...hard to believe they were so weak minded eh?
I'd hardly call a kid riding on a bike a "battle-hardened opponent." These people weren't even looking for a fight. They were minding their own business, and someone shot at them.
In the eyes of Tom Crawford, they are "Pussies." But that's Tom. He's also had to face people on the complete opposite end of the spectrum who didn't stop. Tom also was involved in retrieving prison escapees who had nothing to lose. That's when he'd go out with a shotgun with slugs that could shatter a cinderblock.
Jim wrote:
But after thinking about it a while--I don't think that some of the conditioning Uechi folks do is that much different in the end than what some do in wing chun..
It's very similar, Jim. The biggest difference is the degree to which this kind of conditioning is well-planned vs. random. And on an experience note, I have observed that I and my students bruise less when we warm up with arm and leg conditioning before engaging in partner work. I don't fully understand how this works, but I know that it works and exploit it.
Jim wrote:
Some of the force v force arm banging I would take exception to because it contradicts some core concepts I do (forgive me)
No need, Jim. I get it. It's the degree to which you can appropriately sense and get around force vs. accept it or bludgeon through it. You want to be developing the right instincts in your training, and you don't want to feed an experienced opponent information via the way you impose your physical will on them. There's a time to bull your way through, and a time to be sensitive and/or get off the line of force. Ideally we've had enough experience/training to be able to make the adjustments on the fly.
There's also a need to be able to continue when/if we F up or are surprise-attacked. This is probably one of the most important advantages to proper physical and psychological conditioning.
But of course all of that is easier said than done. At any one time, I'm sure we all could use adjustments in our training and approaches.
- Bill
If you bothered to read what I write you would see my perspective.
