Originally posted by Viking
If you have to charge at the enemy you are not in close combat. 10.000 years ago a single archer could have done the same.
If you think think that even the most modern bow today, ( much less an ancient relic of 8,000 BC ), can be fired as fast as a modern handgun, well, then you have obviously never used either weapon yourself.
My own great great great grandfather killed 3 American Indians at close quarters in 1854 while on horseback with his then new Colt Navy model revolver. The Indians were armed with bows and arrows, and also lances. Despite having a 2 to 1 advantage in numbers, the Indians broke and ran. Two other men from the armed party from their wagon train, also were armed with the new Colt revolvers.
A handgun can be wielded at far closer quarters than ANY long arm can be maneuvered. Period.
Here in the United States, a famous football player this week tried to defend his home against intruders with a machete. Problem is the intruder had a handgun. And a machete can be used in much closer quarters than any long arm with a bayonet.
Guess who died in this incident???
The Bayonet is totally irrelevant to close quarters combat in modern day warfare.
The urban combat that US troops in Iraq are currently facing is as close quartered as one can get. Yet none of them are bothering to fix useless bayonets to their rifles. Just check any of the thousands of news photos currently online showing American troops in combat.
SIG 220