Bowie

This is my replica of a Searles Bowie knife.  The legendary bowie knife is just that, a legend as there is no surviving knife or picture that can be traced back to Jim Bowie.  The Searles Bowie though can be traced back to Jim's brother Rezin and the original is on display at the Alamo museum.

Rezin gave the Searles knife (named after Daniel Searles) as presentation gifts.  It makes sense then that this might be close to the knife Jim Bowie used at the famous Sandbar duel.

Rezin's more famous brother Jim was made famous due to his use of a large knife to kill one of his attackers at the Sandbar duel.  Jim was not actually in the duel but was acting as a second for his friend.   The following account is an excerpt from a longer article appearing on the "Bowie Knife Fights, Fighters and Fighting Techniques":

  About this time Cuny and Bowie had come on to the field in violation of the agreement and as the principals were walking out, Cuny called to Crain that then and there was a good time to settle their little difference, at the same time drawing a pistol. Crain turned and fired at Bowie who was with Cuny. Bowie was struck in the hip, Crain in the fleshy part of the arm. Dr. Cuny tried to prevent his brother from going into the fight and for a time forceably held him, but finally freeing himself he started back at Crain who now fired his remaining pistol, mortally wounding General Cuny. Bowie had not been disabled and drawing his knife advanced upon Crain. When Bowie was within reach of Crain, Crain struck Bowie over the head with his pistol used as a club. As Crain retreated, his friend Norris Wright came upon the scene and attacked Bowie with a sword cane. Bowie was already wounded and bleeding. He attempted to ward off the sword cane, but failed. It struck him in the breast striking the bone and breaking off. Wright was near enough for Bowie to reach him with one of his hands, and gripping him like a vice he stabbed him to death with his knife.
Sandbar Duel 

The knife used in the fight has been identified in other accounts as a large hunting knife. Some speculate it was a type of large Spanish hunting knife. Others indicate it was a knife made by a man named Snowden at the request of Bowie. Regardless, the knife was given to Jim Bowie by his brother Rezin after Jim was shot in another fight. Jim Bowie was armed in that fight with a pistol which misfired allowing his assailant to shoot him. Despite being shot, the account goes that Bowie would have killed the shooter with his bare hands. Rezin gave Jim a large knife after this incident and quipped "It won't snap", meaning it won't misfire. I like the Searles as it is the only knife that we know for sure was owned by a Bowie. I suspect even if it isn't the same design as the knife Jim Bowie used, its design reflects its characteristics.

The first thing I notice is the Searles bowie is a very ornate design.  It looks more like a presentation design than a fighting knife but therein lies an enigma.  As soon as you pick up the knife, you notice is forward balance.  It wants to slash and when you slash with it, the forward balance adds a lot of power to the slash.  The gapping wound a powerful slash with the Searles bowie would be on par with the wounds sustained by Bowies victim at the Sandbar.

The next thing I notice is the blade is not clipped with a sharpened backside as are other bowie knives.  There has been much made of the lethality and quickness of a "back-cut" with a bowie knife.  A true back-cut is a nasty, lightning quick move but I think this came long after Jim Bowie had moved into legend.  Hunting knives aren't sharpened on both sides as it would potentially tear pelts or hides too much damaging high profitable sales.

I am unconvinced Jim Bowie did not use a back-cut.  Back-cuts come from saber fighting and are a way to slash downwards without leaving yourself exposed.  I've not read where Bowie ever used a saber so using a back-cut would not have been instinctive for him.  Rather, he probably just used the obvious power of the big blade to slash and stab.  One blow from this blade and an assailant would be either killed or at least incapacitated.

The Rezin bowie has made me rethink some of the modern fighting knives I've trained with.  Long, narrow blades really don't inflict the same level of deep wounds as the Rezin.  The blades are made thin and short which are easy to carry and conceal but they lack the power of the heavier Rezin.  It is the same reason why kukris are so much deadlier than thinner machetes.  A large, think blade cleaves as it goes through flesh and muscle.  It can severe or shatter bones.

Modern blades prefer subdued finishes for stealth.  I used to agree with that but I've of late realized that shiny blade has an advantage as well.  In a fight, the flash of the blade with cause the eye to follow it.  If you know how to use angles of attack, the shiny finish can be much more of an advantage than it may appear.  Unless you are on Seal Team Six and sneaking up on a sentry at night, a high polished finish may not be as problematic as you think.

If you are into large blades, especially bowies, you will want to add this knife to your collection.

Three long gun projects

I have three long guns that I have been eyeing for some upgrades. The first is a Marlin 60. It has been needing a scope for sometime (bifocals make using the iron sights difficult). I just ordered a BSA rimfire scope and rings. I should have pics of this up soon. I've always believed an accurate .22 rimfire rifle is a must in anyone's collection. From plinking and small, having an inexpensive means of maintaining your shooting skills is terrific. For those who plan on WTSHTF, an accurate .22 rimfire loaded with subsonic ammunition gives you a means of shooting without attracting undue attention.

The next two projects are going to be more expensive. First up, I have a Remington 870 that previously was in the Nebraska State Patrol in the 1980s. It still has the old school metal folding stock, hard plastic pistol grip and magazine extension. Curiously, they left the wooden forend grip on this gun. It is still a fine tactical weapon but I want to update it a bit.

First, the folding stock and old style pistol grip have to go. I'm thinking about a stock with a recoil reduction system. There are many tactical forends and I'm leaning towards one with a picatinny rail. I could then attach a tactical light (if I want to go mall ninja). It only has a bead sight so that has to be upgraded. Originally I wanted to go with ghost rings but there are some reflex sights now that are small enough to be an option. Of course that's after I decide if it gets a new, shorter barrel. I'd like an accurate barrel to deliver slugs in a nice tight group. While its primary role will still he home defense, it may need to fill other roles on short notice. Case in point, back in the early 90s an African lion got loose from its pen on a farm about 20 miles from here. There are all kinds of idiots owning exotic animals. The Remington, armed with slugs and 00 buckshot, would be my first choice to deal with wild animals on the lose.

Once all of the physical upgrades are made, I then want to get it coat in something more durable than its current blue. I'm hoping to think my way through this over the fall and maybe have this ready for prime time in the spring.

Once the 870 completes its transformation, my money and time will focus on the final long gun project. I have a Springfield M1A1 that has been sitting idol in the gun closet. It can shoot further than my eyes can see so some type of optical sight is a must. Originally I was going to put a scope on it and let it do with .308s do well; shot long and straight. But in exploring sighting options for the Remington, I've decided that a reflex sight may be an option. It would turn the M1A1 into more of an urban warfare type weapon but isn't that where I live?

Fix our Schools

Congresswoman Shakowsky is trying to create more jobs by introducing a $227 billion jobs bill. On one of the cable talk shows, she commented that we (the US) needs to fix our schools.

It was a through a comment much like saying, we need to eat more fiber. It is just a sound byte comment that gets head nodding without thinking through the real problem. If schools were to only reason we have unemployed workers, then the money already injected into schools would have produced more qualified workers.

The problem with getting more people into the workplace is more complicated. Our secondary education system does not produce qualified workers except for service industry (unless the student attended a vocational or career center). Students with diplomas have to go one for further academic training in order to get a job.

The curriculum at high schools is more about appeasing the state education controlling authority than producing a workforce. If the curriculum fails to meet state requirements, the school district does not qualify for state subsidies. The curriculum is controlled by teachers without regard to the requirements of the workplace. If it were, we would see high school diplomas as the entry point into the workforce. At least in the Buckeye State, you will need a minimum of an associate's degree or certification (such as fire, EMT, police, welder, etc).

The other problem is fewer and fewer students get the support for academic studies at home. There a many reasons for this but it comes down to the student receiving little support or encouragement for their studies. Students aren't held back because this would cause the district to lose funding. Graduates then have to go for additional training and education to qualify for jobs.

I hope the Congresswoman's plan works but remain skeptical to injecting money into schools without regard to changing the curriculums will result in much a change.

We seem to have forgotten the basics

The above picture is of the .45 Long Colt round. It represents the ammunition choice 19th Century soldiers, lawman and gunslingers had for their sidearms and rifles. Exactly one, the conical lead bullet. Whether it was .36, .40, .41, .44 or .45 all bullets were semi-rounded chunks of lead. No hollow points (or "dums dums" as they British would later invent), no copper jacketed liquid alloy core. No plastic sabot filled with #12 shot and liquid Teflon. No frangible rounds with tungsten coated projectiles. Just a hunk of lead.

There are countless gunslingers, cowboys, lawmen, native Americans, and others that met their fate as a result of a round piece of lead.

Movies and magazines have created all manner of data about the need for reliable expansion and one shot stopping power. You can pay more than double for a box of 20 high-tech rounds compared to a box of 50 non-high tech rounds.

These high tech rounds begin to take on the same ridiculous arguments as though to ask which is better, a 9mm or 45 ACP? What difference does it make if you don't hit your target or worse, leave your weapon at home. Hollow point or Hyrdo Shock? Doesn't matter if you miss. A full metal jacket will drop someone just as fast as a high-tech round if you hit the central nervous system. Hollow points don't expand that often due to clothing, barrel length and metal expansion so in effect you have just paid double for a round nose bullet. Save the cost and buy the ammunition that works best in your weapon and DOESN'T cost a fortune.

Rather than worry about the latest high-tech round, stick to the basics. Learn to shoot your weapon really, really well. John Dillinger was killed by a police office chasing him at full speed firing his .38 Special revolver. The officer placed three rounds into the back of Dillinger. Wild Bill Hitchcock killed Davis Tutt with a single shot from 75 yards away (think about that the next time you are feeling like a bad ass because you fired a 4 inch group at 25 feet).

The bullets did not matter, the shot placement did.

Boys pretending to be men

I picked Wilson and Vaughn for the pic but it could just as easily have been any other group of comedians. Truth in writing, I really enjoyed Wedding Crashers but I could not help but notice that they were too old to be acting like a couple of high school students.

Vaughn and Owens personify the 21st Century fascination with boy-men. Movies and pop culture show irresponsible, sophomoric behavior as deriguer. House MD for examples shows a brilliant physician who is addicted to Vicodin and regular engages in frat boy behavior without consequence. Such behavior in reality would have landed the dear doctor unemployed and quite possibly in jail.

The gangsta persona is nothing more than a bunch of immature males running around with guns, bling, drugs and hookers somehow or other passing for adult behavior.

I was reading some friends Facebook postings today and there is an effort to reduce bullying. The examples were that the girl who got called fat has an eating disorder. The boy who got called stupid now has a learning disorder. Please stop bullying. What I did not read was the story about the boy who got called stupid and ended up graduating magna cum laude. Or the fat girl that went own to run her own fortune 500 company. There are stories like that out there but we emphasize consensus building instead of strength.

Hence we are experiencing a generation of boy-men who contribute nothing back to society except their stupid antics. Kids are routinely kicked out of school for drawing pictures of guns. Why? How does kicking the kid out of school teach the kid anything except how to become alienated from society?

We've got to start allowing boys to grow into men and then hold them responsible for being men. Stupid, immature behavior should be labeled as such and not excused as "edgy". Imagine these boy-men dealing with the crisis in Japan or handling the Libyan army?

I've started to re-watch the movies that shaped my views of the military. I begin with the Enemy Below. Even if you haven't seen this movie, its basic plot (two war-weary captains evenly matched try to out maneuver each other) has been redone in several TV series and movies (for the Trekkies out there, watch Kirk battle the Romulan captain).

I first saw "The Enemy Below" when I was still in grade school (probably 3rd or 4th grade). I was fascinated by the strategy each captain had to develop to try to survive. I also was intrigued by the mutual admiration they developed for their unseen opponent. It wasn't personal, it was just a job. I loved the espirit de coprs amongst the ships crews.

When I watched it again later in my 20s and 30s, I respected the fear both crews had knowing that one mistake by their captain could mean instant death. Yet they still executed their jobs despite the harrowing conditions. I like the different leadership styles of the captains. The destroyer captain was worldly and cool. He had two other boats shot out from under him. He recognized the talents his crew had (sonar man, the exec who had raced yachts, the engineers) and knew where he had a weakness (a green crew on the depth charges). He took it all in and made it work. The U-boat captain was an enigma even to his closest friend the first officer. His moods could shift from moody introspection to fiery passion. He could cower his crew with a scowl or help quell the fears of a suicidal crew mate with a fatherly talk.

Watching it again the other night, I saw all of the same elements but some new ones as well. Neither captain was especially thrilled about the war and viewed their duties as just doing their jobs. The U-boat captain was openly dismissive of one of his officers who was clearly a product of the Hitler Youth Corps. Today, the U-boat captain would be diagnosed with PTSD. He was fatalist and say his role as a warrior inevitably ending in his death (just as had happened to his two sons). The destroyer captain seemed motivated by the loss of his new bride (whom he got passage on his merchant freighter which was sunk) as well as an attempt to prove himself after losing his previous destroyer to a U-boat only weeks earlier. Neither of these back stories is particularly noble and seems to convey a message that only these kinds of men can excel at war. I don't know if this was the director or the one set in the book.

Now as a retied colonel looking back on my career I saw parts of myself in both captains. I identify with the U-boat captains suspicions of his government that their motives are only going to get you killed. I empathize with his weariness of war and how modern technology takes the "human" out of war (drones will never experience regret or PTSD). I identify with the destroyer captains self-confidence and calmness in doing his job. He the U-boat has the advantage and that the situation could easily go from bad (mono y mono) to horrible (encountering a German raider). He formulates a plan and carries it out while encouraging his crew and earning their respect at the same tim.

The final scene would never be shot today. We are too cynical and after being inundated with "reality" shows, cannot believe that two opposing captains would find any kind of respect. But that was the whole point of "The Enemy Below" is just that, at the end of the day it is about doing your job. Being a professional in your job, you recognize and can even admire your enemy.

Watch "The Enemy Below" to see how movies used to make you think and feel. And not one CGI or commercial placement to be seen.

The Great Swordfight of Sabratha

The old axiom, "Never bring a knife to a gunfight" is far from always correct.

On Friday afternoon 40 rebels brandishing 2ft swords and scimitars spearheaded a group of 1,000 men who clashed with army troops in Sabratha, a coastal town 40 miles west of Tripoli.

It made for a bizarre spectacle. While Colonel Gaddafi has the most modern of arms at his disposal, his civilians were relying on weaponry that hadn’t been used in anger since the days of Lawrence of Arabia.

Some said the swords belonged to their grandfathers in the First World War,’ said Egyptian waiter Mahmoud El Masri, who witnessed the fighting.

‘It was a crazy sight, all these swords being wildly swung in the main street. I was hiding in a cafe but I saw them connect with the soldiers and I heard blood was spilt.

‘The men with swords were at the front of the protesters, leading them. It scared me but they are brave to take on men with guns.’


Knives or swords are extremely lethal. They don't jam or require reloading. For those unfamiliar with knives or swords, you need to realize all parts can be used in an attack. The back of the blade can shatter bones or cracked skulls. A jab with the pommel can break ribs or knock the wind out of an opponent. Blades like the scimitar or bowie with a clip point allow the user to cut on both the down stroke as well as the back stroke. A single swing of a sword or long knife (such as a bowie or my favorite, the kukri) can injure multiple opponents.

Gunshot wounds are wicked and deadly but there is something even more psychologically devastating about seeing a human being filleted in front of your eyes. Watching body parts getting lob off can send even the most combat hardened troops packing in the opposite direction.

Does that mean I will be abandoning my H&K USP Compact in favor of my kukri? Well it depends. If I think I might need to engage a target at a distance, the H&K gets the nod. However, many times carrying a firearm can present other challenges. Hiking with an open carry firearm can cause fellow hikers some concern. However, no one seems concerned about a good field knife on your belt. If circumstances allow, I would carry both and then be able to employ the best solution.

Don't let the crap on the TV and Internet fool you. Edged-weapons are still lethal in the 21st Century and may be the option for defending yourself (or leading a revolution!)