- Woodsie
- |
- Exalted Mythic Member
Posted by: Fatalorian
Apparently you think you know a lot about weapons and war. What you obviously don't know is that no matter what the gun, a bullet to the head kills someone. For some reason you think that an assualt rifle would beat a pistol hands down. It is much easier to manuever and wield a pistol than it is an assualt rifle and a headshot from either is enough to bring a man down. In a close-quarters situation, a pistol is much better, quicker to move around, not as bulky, makes less noise, and easier to reload.
And apparently you do not know what a Magnum is. I suggest you watch the history channel's Modern Marvels on the Magnum. The overpacked cartridge from a Magnum can cause more damage to a target than the 5.56mm round the M4 uses. And by the way, it's the M4A1 that is used in Iraq.
My point, unless the two "duelers" start at a very far distant with no cover, the pistol has an equal shot if not better at winning. If it is close in fighting, the pistol will surely have a better shot (no pun intended). Just think about it. If pistol's were really that bad, why would Police carry a pistol? They would carry an automatic weapon or a modified assualt rifle instead.
Pistols have their role, and the instant kill headshot with no shields for the MC's magnum is appropriate.
That's a bunch of crap. A pistol would not have an equal shot or better. If this was true, then there would be no purpose for assault rifles. Rifles are more stable firing platforms and generally accepted to be more accurate. And atleast as I am understood you can achieve a higher muzzle velocity with accuracy. Not every shot is a headshot, so accuracy and knockdown power DO count. Hence the widespread use of the assault rifle in Militaries across the globe.
If everything was equal (which its not), then our military would just be running around with pistols with generous clips if not simply to take advantage of the weight and bulk savings. Clearly this has not happened because...
[Edited on 5/9/2006]