# Guns vs Swords



## Modern Fe9 (Nov 1, 2009)

The ye old argument whether swords bet guns or guns beat swords


i prefer guns. the AA 12 auto shotgun


----------



## LizardKing (Nov 1, 2009)

In what scenario

At what range

Rated by what part of their performance


----------



## Dass (Nov 1, 2009)

Gun wins unless Jeremy Clarkson is shooting it (see top gear winter olympic special)


----------



## LizardKing (Nov 1, 2009)

Is it even rated by how useful they are or how easy they are to obtain

Or to keep in condition

Or the training requried

Or the cost of them

Et-fucking-cetera


----------



## TheNewfie (Nov 1, 2009)

I'm going with guns on this one because I like the ability to kill people before they ever see me. >=]


----------



## LizardKing (Nov 1, 2009)

TheNewfie said:


> I'm going with guns on this one because I like the ability to kill people before they ever see me. >=]



1) Get a knife
2) Sneak up behind someone
3) ?????
4) PROFIT


----------



## ramsay_baggins (Nov 1, 2009)

Swords

My boyfriend is trained in the use of medieval weapons and was instructing them recently over a weekend. He also looks damn awesome in full plate armour xD


----------



## Zombie_Genocide (Nov 1, 2009)

THE PEN IS MIGHTER THE THE SWORD.

*AGRYFAIC*


----------



## Ratte (Nov 1, 2009)

Swords are pretty awesome.


----------



## Kaamos (Nov 1, 2009)

What about a gunsword?


----------



## Bad Hare (Nov 1, 2009)

I'm an experienced eskrima practitioner, know a fair bit about filipino sword styles, however I'd prefer a gun for the purpose of self defense/home protection, ect.


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 1, 2009)

This is a silly argument. Swords were thousands of years before firearms used in combat, and as time went on newer inventions would over-take them. Firearms are clearly superior in every way. Every way. 

However, elegance or personal preference may dictate differently.


----------



## Ikrit (Nov 1, 2009)

deadpool knows the answer to this


----------



## Kajet (Nov 1, 2009)

Swords, A more elegant weapon, from a more elegant time.


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 1, 2009)

lazyredhead said:


> deadpool knows the answer to this



He uses both. >:


----------



## Panda (Nov 1, 2009)

Eh...A gun would probably win.
  But I prefer swords,seems more honorable to look your enemy in the eye.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Nov 1, 2009)

Modern Fe9 said:


> The ye old argument whether swords bet guns or guns beat swords
> 
> 
> i prefer guns. the AA 12 auto shotgun



There is a saying:  *"Never bring a knife to a gunfight."*  So, gun wins out over sword.




NewfDraggie said:


> This is a silly argument. Swords were thousands of years before firearms used in combat, and as time went on newer inventions would over-take them. Firearms are clearly superior in every way. Every way.
> 
> *However, elegance or personal preference may dictate differently.*



I have to admit, though... personally, I'd like to carry both out in the field (just recently found a place that sells handmade custom hunting swords).  Gun for primary use, sword for backup dispatch (ammo is expensive, now, while a blade is freebie).


----------



## Shark_the_raptor (Nov 1, 2009)

Guns of course.

http://www.501steod.com/images/barrett.jpg
http://www.rifletech.com/ptrs41/ptrs41-2.jpg
http://www.epicycle.org.uk/images/minigun2.jpg

:3


----------



## blackfuredfox (Nov 1, 2009)

Kaamos said:


> What about a gunsword?



agreed.
http://www.ruble-enterprises.com/PFsword.htm
though out of all weapons, Nuclear.


----------



## TheNewfie (Nov 1, 2009)

Can a sword do this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aq0wBd5naGc


----------



## Shay Feral (Nov 1, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> However, elegance or personal preference may dictate differently.



I don't know, there are some guns out there with excellent craftsmanship and detail. And it's not exactly professional to take a knife to a gun fight.


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 1, 2009)

Yes but there's many more swords with such characteristics, therefore swords are more elegant.


----------



## blackfuredfox (Nov 1, 2009)

wait, Artillery pieces are guns, so here is my fav.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2707742178060886128&hl=en#


----------



## Shay Feral (Nov 1, 2009)

Thats because swords had a head start in history... And it costs more to make a gun... A good one anyway...


----------



## Roose Hurro (Nov 1, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Yes but there's many more swords with such characteristics, therefore swords are more elegant.



We need proof.........


----------



## blackfuredfox (Nov 1, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Yes but there's many more swords with such characteristics, therefore swords are more elegant.



i wont disagree, swords are fine weapons, but that is an opinion.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 1, 2009)

blackfuredfox said:


> agreed.
> http://www.ruble-enterprises.com/PFsword.htm
> though out of all weapons, Nuclear.


NUKES PWN ALL!
Although I'd have to say I like guns better than swords, would a gun that uses electromagnets to fire bullets count, because even though we're still working on the technology those things are awesome.


----------



## blackfuredfox (Nov 1, 2009)

CannonFodder said:


> NUKES PWN ALL!
> Although I'd have to say I like guns better than swords, would a gun that uses electromagnets to fire bullets count, because even though we're still working on the technology those things are awesome.



i wish we had Direct Energy Weapons, those would be awesome.


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 1, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> We need proof.........



The entire Japanese culture surrounding both the katana and their samurai wielding warriors, and the Ninja with his ninjaken, for starters. The holy paladins wielding their two handed swords during the crusades, too.

And of course because they've been around much, much longer and have lore built up.


Shay Feral said:


> Thats because swords had a head start in history... And it costs more to make a gun... A good one anyway...


Yeah right. Longer yes, more expensive I don't think so. I've seen swords worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. Seven layered katanas worth 30k each, each completely different than the last.

It's not just an opinion, it's not hard to back it up. Unless you consider elegance has a different meaning, but then you're just poor at English or something.
I mean, not just the craftsmanship, the time, and the skill required to make and forge the weapon but the use of it is much more elegant as well. But then again there's much more room for design traits and characteristics to make a sword stand out from a firearm, but then again for the same reason there's a lot more involved in the process of forging one meaning more room for errors.


----------



## Adamada (Nov 1, 2009)

Swords are cool to look at, but guns are more practical.


----------



## Tycho (Nov 1, 2009)

There is a good reason modern military forces rely primarily on firearms.


----------



## Azure (Nov 1, 2009)

I'd say a gun is far more customizable than a sword.  While you can vary the length of the blade, and change the shape of the sword, at it's heart it is a very singularly purposed weapon, to stab or cut your opponent. With a gun, and this is covering all guns, you have caliber, chamber size, barrel length, how it's powered, thousands of different kinds of ammo for different purposes, incendiary, armor piercing, flechettes, buckshot, bird shot, sabot, more than I could ever name, and all for different applications.  As far as swords being expensive, a lot of their value is due to their antiquity, and nothing more.  Though there are many cases of expensive swords, if we were to nitpick the gun category, I'd throw in a naval cannon or two.  No sword even comes close to the price of a single shell. 

I prefer guns myself.  That whole honor in combat is bullshit.  At the end of the day, the other fella is dead, and that's all I give a shit about.  Anybody who thinks those western film shootouts are realistic ought to be kicked in the head.

Or this 2 million dollar 100% gold engraved Colt SAA


----------



## Imperial Impact (Nov 1, 2009)




----------



## Kuekuatsheu (Nov 1, 2009)

Pointless thread is pointless.



Perverted Impact said:


>


^


----------



## blackfuredfox (Nov 1, 2009)

AzurePhoenix said:


> I'd say a gun is far more customizable than a sword.  While you can vary the length of the blade, and change the shape of the sword, at it's heart it is a very singularly purposed weapon, to stab or cut your opponent. With a gun, and this is covering all guns, you have caliber, chamber size, barrel length, how it's powered, thousands of different kinds of ammo for different purposes, incendiary, armor piercing, flechettes, buckshot, bird shot, sabot, more than I could ever name, and all for different applications.  As far as swords being expensive, a lot of their value is due to their antiquity, and nothing more.  Though there are many cases of expensive swords, if we were to nitpick the gun category, I'd throw in a naval cannon or two.  No sword even comes close to the price of a single shell.
> 
> I prefer guns myself.  That whole honor in combat is bullshit.  At the end of the day, the other fella is dead, and that's all I give a shit about.  Anybody who thinks those western film shootouts are realistic ought to be kicked in the head.
> 
> Or this 2 million dollar 100% gold engraved Colt SAA


im pretty sure that an SAA is a revolver. like this.
http://www.juliaauctions.com/press_releases/2008/firearm/03-08/32964x2.jpg


----------



## Telnac (Nov 1, 2009)

I LOVE swords, but the saying "bringing a knife to a gun fight" exists for a reason.  Unless you can find a way to sneak up on your opponent & surprise them, you're screwed if you have a sword & they have a gun.


----------



## LizardKing (Nov 1, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Firearms are clearly superior in every way. Every way.



Ammunition.

Noise.

Complexity.

Maintenance.

Weight.

Versatility.


----------



## Duality Jack (Nov 1, 2009)

blades do not need to be reloaded, are Quiet, don't use ammo, are easily maintained and are more easy to purchase.


----------



## blackfuredfox (Nov 1, 2009)

LizardKing said:


> Ammunition.
> 
> Noise.
> 
> ...



Bring enough.

Suppressor.

Learn about what you are using.

Carry spare parts.

That can vary.

Again, it varies from gun to gun.

now swords have short comings too, like range, you need to rely on your own energy to use it, they dull over time.


----------



## Nargle (Nov 1, 2009)

Since the only reason I'd use a weapon is for hunting or self defense, I'm gonna have to go with guns. 1, Killing an animal with one quick shot from a gun is a lot more humane than slitting its throat and having it bleed out for several minutes. 2, It's unlikely that an intruder would bring a sword into someone's house, so it makes sense to be prepared with a gun.


----------



## Telnac (Nov 1, 2009)

LizardKing said:


> Versatility.


A sword isn't very versatile at 400 yards.  Hell, at 100 yards I'd put my money on an amateur archer w/ a 30 pound bow over a charging dude with a sword.  A gun needs even less training to be effective and is FAR more accurate and deadly than a bow.


----------



## blackfuredfox (Nov 1, 2009)

wait, everyone, lets look back when people couldnt decide what they wanted back hundreds of years ago. they made bayonets. so it covers the short comings of both.


----------



## LizardKing (Nov 1, 2009)

blackfuredfox said:


> Bring enough.
> If 'enough' is anything greater than 0, your point is moot. And once it's used up, you have to go find some more, unless you like pistol-whipping things.
> 
> Suppressor.
> ...


----------



## LizardKing (Nov 1, 2009)

I'm not saying guns are useless or anything. Hell, in most situations I'd rather have one.

But claiming guns are superior in "every way" is a mountain of bullshit.


----------



## blackfuredfox (Nov 1, 2009)

actually, on the last one that is the point, you raised points on short comings of firearms, i name short comings with blades. for the sound you stab someone i think they could make a noise. though i do want to go on to one major downfal of a sword. the fact you have to swing it, if you miss you are expossed to an attack. so lets just say the guns with bayonets work best.

EDIT: also im not saying they are superior in everyway, i even pointed out that they have thier own short comings, like swords.


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 1, 2009)

AzurePhoenix said:


> I'd say a gun is far more customizable than a sword.  While you can vary the length of the blade, and change the shape of the sword, at it's heart it is a very singularly purposed weapon, to stab or cut your opponent. With a gun, and this is covering all guns, you have caliber, chamber size, barrel length, how it's powered, thousands of different kinds of ammo for different purposes, incendiary, armor piercing, flechettes, buckshot, bird shot, sabot, more than I could ever name, and all for different applications.  As far as swords being expensive, a lot of their value is due to their antiquity, and nothing more.  Though there are many cases of expensive swords, if we were to nitpick the gun category, I'd throw in a naval cannon or two.  No sword even comes close to the price of a single shell.
> 
> I prefer guns myself.  That whole honor in combat is bullshit.  At the end of the day, the other fella is dead, and that's all I give a shit about.  Anybody who thinks those western film shootouts are realistic ought to be kicked in the head.
> 
> Or this 2 million dollar 100% gold engraved Colt SAA


100% gold means it is about 24c, which means it can't fire. Ever. lol And that's not a SAA.


LizardKing said:


> Ammunition.


Yep, means you have range and many types of jobs can be completed with many different types of ammo.


> Noise.


Suppressors, sub-sonic ammunition.


> Complexity.


I've seen complex swords and non complex firearms, so...moot.


> Maintenance.


Swords require just as much, if not more. Sharpening is a skill all on its own, remember.


> Weight.


Many types of guns, a lot are lighter than any sword and almost all are more maneuverable.


> Versatility.


Explain this one, because I don't see how a gun is less versatile than a sword. You digging trenches with a sword or something?


The Drunken Ace said:


> blades do not need to be reloaded, are Quiet, don't use ammo, are easily maintained and are more easy to purchase.


Look above, and yeah sharpening or breaking would be much, much worse than a reload. Seeing as it takes months of work to create a sword of high class you can't just have a second one instantly.


LizardKing said:


> I'm not saying guns are useless or anything. Hell, in most situations I'd rather have one.
> 
> But claiming guns are superior in "every way" is a mountain of bullshit.


They are, in every way.


----------



## PenningtontheSkunk (Nov 1, 2009)

Uzzie 500' beats the Katana.


----------



## Zolen (Nov 1, 2009)

Depends, close range-sword, long range-gun.


----------



## Dass (Nov 1, 2009)

Zolen said:


> Depends, close range-sword, long range-gun.



Close range I still say gun wins, I mean it could take a few sword hacks to kill someone, but at point-blank range I think a shot pretty much anywhere would be lethal.


----------



## Garreth (Nov 1, 2009)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cdYrBsWhtk

Pretty much explains the majorities my stance on this topic.


----------



## Attaman (Nov 1, 2009)

Guns have superiority over swords.  

First off, range.  When you have a firearm, you have a very significant kill distance advantage over swords.

Second, armor penetration.  A sword might be swung at 14m/s max, and the energy - while placed on an edge - is spread across all of it.  A bullet can fire at an order of magnitude faster, times two, and is spread over a much smaller area.  Of course, depending on the context of the scenario this _could_ be a disadvantage (for instance:  Trying to prevent hull breaches or when a soft target is in front of non-hostiles).

Third:  Crowd control.  Yes, a gun has limited ammunition.  However, unless you're a fucking Sword Wizard, you are not going to be able to fight three or four people similarly armed at once and expect to do anything other than die messily.  With even just a pistol, as long as you are further than arm's reach away you can hold off however many people as you can fire shots before reloading.  

Fourth:  Energy.  Sure, your sword might be lighter than a rifle with several magazines.  But you have to swing with your sword every single time you wish to use it.  If you make a direct hit, you then have to exert further force to continue / finish the attack, retrieve your weapon, and ready for another go.  With a rifle or pistol, you raise the weapon, aim, and fire.  New hostile?  Adjust aim, fire again.  Rinse and repeat until a reload is necessary.  You will tire yourself out much faster in hand-to-hand than you will in 'just' a gunfight (although this is a bit of a moot point, seeing as you'll almost never get in 'just' a gunfight that doesn't entail seeking cover, changing your position, etc).


----------



## Shino (Nov 1, 2009)

I point to a quote: "Son, I think you just brought a knife... to a gunfight."


----------



## Nargle (Nov 1, 2009)

LizardKing said:


> I'm not saying guns are useless or anything. Hell, in most situations I'd rather have one.
> 
> But claiming guns are superior in "every way" is a mountain of bullshit.



Gun are superior in "every way" that is useful to me.


----------



## X (Nov 1, 2009)

really depends on what you want, swords are versatile and elegant. and guns have raw power and range.

i personally like guns more.


----------



## Tycho (Nov 1, 2009)

Also: Knives/daggers/bayonets are superior to swords.  A rifle + solidly mounted bayonet = a spear, one of the more efficient ways to stab people.


----------



## Duality Jack (Nov 1, 2009)

guns don't kill fast it takes hours to bleed out in most cases.


----------



## Kaamos (Nov 1, 2009)

In reality: Guns

In most fiction: Swords


----------



## Tycho (Nov 1, 2009)

The Drunken Ace said:


> guns don't kill fast it takes hours to bleed out in most cases.



Orrrrrr you could squeeze off a coup de grace round and speed it up.  Guns kill as fast as the skilled user cares to.  A follow-up bullet is less energy expended than an execution blow with a sword.


----------



## Nargle (Nov 1, 2009)

The Drunken Ace said:


> guns don't kill fast it takes hours to bleed out in most cases.



Hours? _Really?_ I call BS.


----------



## Duality Jack (Nov 1, 2009)

Tycho said:


> Orrrrrr you could squeeze off a coup de grace round and speed it up.  Guns kill as fast as the skilled user cares to.  A follow-up bullet is less energy expended than an execution blow with a sword.


 really? *sigh* a welll used blade kills instantly quetly and inexpensively,  In combat situations I was taught to use firearms as a last resort.





Nargle said:


> Hours? _Really?_ I call BS.


Ballistic trauma casues the wound to congeal and swell to slow the bleeding significantly depending on where you get shot. It can take anywhere from 5 minutes (upper torso or near a major vain) to up to 2-3 hours if hit in soft muscle tissue with a lower powered round (such as a .22).  plus people will try to slow the bleeding if left if they do not go into shock even further. round holes close naturally amd swiftly  and a triangular (spike bayonet) or steep angle (combat blade)  cannot close easily and are developed to promote heavy bleeding.


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 1, 2009)

The Drunken Ace said:


> really? *sigh* a welll used blade kills instantly quetly and inexpensively,  In combat situations I was taught to use firearms as a last resort.



You were never taught shit.
Swords are the one that takes hours to bleed out, not gun.


----------



## Dass (Nov 1, 2009)

The Drunken Ace said:


> really? *sigh* a welll used blade kills instantly quetly and inexpensively,  In combat situations I was taught to use firearms as a last resort.Ballistic trauma casues the wound to congeal and swell to slow the bleeding significantly depending on where you get shot. It can take anywhere from 5 minutes (upper torso or near a major vain) to up to 2-3 hours if hit in soft muscle tissue with a lower powered round (such as a .22).  plus people will try to slow the bleeding if left if they do not go into shock even further. round holes close naturally amd swiftly  and a triangular (spike bayonet) or steep angle (combat blade)  cannot close easily and are developed to promote heavy bleeding.



Or you could hit someone's head/heart and kill them instantly. And you can do that with a poorly used gun, not so much with a poorly used blade.


----------



## Nargle (Nov 1, 2009)

The Drunken Ace said:


> really? *sigh* a welll used blade kills instantly quetly and inexpensively,  In combat situations I was taught to use firearms as a last resort.Ballistic trauma casues the wound to congeal and swell to slow the bleeding significantly depending on where you get shot. It can take anywhere from 5 minutes (upper torso or near a major vain) to up to 2-3 hours if hit in soft muscle tissue with a lower powered round (such as a .22).  plus people will try to slow the bleeding if left if they do not go into shock even further. round holes close naturally amd swiftly  and a triangular (spike bayonet) or steep angle (combat blade)  cannot close easily and are developed to promote heavy bleeding.



I think if I was shot someplace where it would take hours to bleed to death, I wouldn't just sit there bleeding. I'd already be in the hospital long before I was even close to death. 

Also, in regard to hunting, if you were to shoot an animal in a place that would take hours to bleed out, you just have to walk over and put a bullet in its heart/brain, and it's instantly dead. Proficient hunters try to kill in one shot, though.


----------



## Bobmuffins (Nov 1, 2009)

I can't kill something from 50 yards away with a sword, now can I?


----------



## TopazThunder (Nov 1, 2009)

Aesthetically? Definitely blades of all kinds. I also have a much larger knowledge of the history of bladed weapons and how to use them than guns. In a way firearms are just too "crude" to me.

That being said, guns most of the time win over in practicality and efficiency in killing. I only really like revolvers and compact pistols though.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Nov 1, 2009)

Shay Feral said:


> Thats because swords had a head start in history... And it costs more to make a gun... A good one anyway...



Oops, seems Newf beat me to it:  ***



NewfDraggie said:


> The entire Japanese culture surrounding both the katana and their samurai wielding warriors, and the Ninja with his ninjaken, for starters. The holy paladins wielding their two handed swords during the crusades, too.
> 
> And of course because they've been around much, much longer and have lore built up.



Granted, but we need pics......... 




NewfDraggie said:


> ***   Yeah right. Longer yes, more expensive I don't think so. I've seen swords worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. Seven layered katanas worth 30k each, each completely different than the last.
> 
> It's not just an opinion, it's not hard to back it up. Unless you consider elegance has a different meaning, but then you're just poor at English or something.
> I mean, not just the craftsmanship, the time, and the skill required to make and forge the weapon but the use of it is much more elegant as well. But then again there's much more room for design traits and characteristics to make a sword stand out from a firearm, but then again for the same reason there's a lot more involved in the process of forging one meaning more room for errors.



Not so much errors as the variations resulting from hand-craftsmanship.  That hunting sword site I mentioned... mentioned that each individual blade is unique, due to this factor.  Same with other sword/blade sites I've visited.  But then again, guns are also forged and crafted... not so much any more, like they were in the past (same for "off the shelf" blades), but a custom gun can be just as expensive and as finely crafted as any custom blade, which is why I like both.  Yet... for different reasons.  Indeed, a fine blade can be more a thing of beauty than even the finest-crafted custom gun, but both weapons have their place both in history as well as in function and purpose.  Certainly, it takes more skill to weild a blade well in battle than a firearm, but even the greatest swordsman has limits a marksman can exceed.  All part of the function/purpose equation.

Even the greatest marksman should carry a fine blade, and know how to use it....


----------



## Azure (Nov 1, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> 100% gold means it is about 24c, which means it can't fire. Ever. lol And that's not a SAA.


Whoops, labeled it wrong.  Too lazy to change it.  And I was referring to the 100% surface area being engraved.  Who the fuck would make a gun out of gold? Idiot.


----------



## uryu788 (Nov 1, 2009)

swords; im obsessed with sharp objects


----------



## Duality Jack (Nov 1, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> You were never taught shit.
> Swords are the one that takes hours to bleed out, not gun.


 Your silly. a large open would caused by a slash has a larger surface area then a simple hole. someone with an arterial wound does not survive more then 10 minutes without attention. and when using a blade right it does not matter as you can easily pierce the heart or neck. (under arm or up under the ribs is easy to hit a heart.)





Dass said:


> Or you could hit someone's head/heart and kill them instantly. And you can do that with a poorly used gun, not so much with a poorly used blade.


 Head shots are EXTREMELY hard on a moving target. Short of spec-ops and snipers they instruct to aim for the chest only.


----------



## Ibuuyk (Nov 1, 2009)

Swords.  Guns are for the weak & lazy.


----------



## Irreverent (Nov 1, 2009)

The Drunken Ace said:


> blades do not need to be reloaded, are Quiet, don't use ammo, are easily maintained and are more easy to purchase.



As one that actually uses a sword weekly (some would say, weakly   ) I can say that swords look ridicules tucked when into your waistband or on a hanger.    They sort of give them selves away.  Now a compact 1911 in a MOB or IWB concealment holster and you'd never know it was there.  

Rifles on the other hand...


----------



## Tycho (Nov 1, 2009)

Ibuuyk said:


> Guns are for the weak & lazy people who don't feel like chasing down their target and flailing wildly at them with a large sharpened piece of metal until they die.



fixed.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Nov 1, 2009)

AzurePhoenix said:


> Or this 2 million dollar 100% gold engraved Colt SAA



That is not a Colt SAA...


----------



## Attaman (Nov 1, 2009)

Ibuuyk said:


> Guns are for the weak & lazy.


  Unfortunately for this argument, "weak" and "lazy" have nothing to do with competence or skill.  Furthermore, argument is reduced to Ad Hominem.  I mean, I could just as simply say "Guns.  Swords are for weeaboos and those with too much money on their hands.", and I'd be as right as you are.


----------



## Tycho (Nov 1, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> That is not a Colt SAA...



M1911.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Nov 1, 2009)

Tycho said:


> M1911.



Not a Colt 1911, either...


----------



## Irreverent (Nov 1, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> Not a Colt 1911, either...



Browning 1903, methinks.  Or a Husky clone.

Edit: nope, I think its a Browning 1907.


----------



## Duality Jack (Nov 1, 2009)

Wazakashi, and a combat knife, and compound bow.  Biretta 9mm for dire situations. 

My ideal loadout.


----------



## Dass (Nov 1, 2009)

The Drunken Ace said:


> Your silly. a large open would caused by a slash has a larger surface area then a simple hole. someone with an arterial wound does not survive more then 10 minutes without attention. and when using a blade right it does not matter as you can easily pierce the heart or neck. (under arm or up under the ribs is easy to hit a heart.) Head shots are EXTREMELY hard on a moving target. Short of spec-ops and snipers they instruct to aim for the chest only.



Versus a sword, where you actually have to chase down a moving target to even connect.


----------



## Duality Jack (Nov 1, 2009)

Dass said:


> Versus a sword, where you actually have to chase down a moving target to even connect.


 moving target does not mean only "running or jumping" it could aslo mean just someone moving the head back and forth. and in the contexts you would use blades the target is most often unaware of your presence and is not running anywhere.


----------



## Dass (Nov 1, 2009)

The Drunken Ace said:


> moving target does not mean only "running or jumping" it could aslo mean just someone moving the head back and forth. and in the contexts you would use blades the target is most often unaware of your presence and is not running anywhere.



Yeah, but a gun in the same situation is going to be just as lethal to the victim. If not more.


----------



## Duality Jack (Nov 1, 2009)

Dass said:


> Yeah, but a gun in the same situation is going to be just as lethal to the victim. If not more.


 But loud .and don't mention suppressors. They just make things harder to hear from long distance. The sound they make is distinct and quite loud. and why use a gun when you are in arms reach? waste of bullets.


----------



## pheonix (Nov 1, 2009)

Guns always beat swords but I prefer swords over the latter.


----------



## Runefox (Nov 1, 2009)

There are several situations where swords are superior to guns:

1) If you're fighting inside a confined space and you have the choice between an M82 and a rapier or something.
2) If you've got the choice between a hand cannon (manual external ignition) and a katana at short range, one-on-one or one-gunner-on-many-swordsmen.
3) Duelling (it wasn't until very recent history that guns (particularly, flint lock pistols) were used for duels, and problems such as a flash in the pan could severely hinder even an expert marksman, unlike with a sword).
4) Several other very specific cases.

There's a reason why people don't carry swords for self-defence anymore. Firstly, they are by and large much more unwieldy than a pistol, which is capable of carrying and firing in succession a large amount of ammunition; In the case of the Beretta 92FS/M9, 15 rounds of 9mm ammunition, and in the case of the FN FiveseveN, 20 rounds of specialized 5.7mm ammunition, both of which provide excellent defensive capability and are relatively easy to control - Even better for defensive purposes are pistols such as the Walther PKM. These allow for manoeuvrability similar to that of a knife, suitable for any range one might need self-defence for.

As for military work, being able to reach out and hit targets up to 300-400 meters or greater in distance, accurately, with a rifle that can be maintained and serviced and even fired by men and women (and indeed, in many parts of the world, children) with very little training is an incredible boon. A person with only minutes of instruction can, for example, become very deadly with an AK-47/AKM. Consider, against that, that in order to properly wield a sword, one needs years to hone their skills in swordplay to match and better their opponents to achieve some chance of winning in battle, and that most of the conscripts in military history carried pikes or other, less complicated weaponry. Mind you, a sword in itself is not a complicated weapon - It's how to use it effectively and how to fight against an opponent and win that's complicated. For a firearm, only learning to fire accurately and how to service the weapon will give any edge - The rest is purely up to tactics and luck. Even someone carrying the most advanced firearms in the world like the FN SCAR, XM8, G36, HK416, and other modern assault rifles can be foiled by a simple bolt-action Mosin-Nagant if the employed tactics are right or even if they just get caught by surprise - Even the most highly-trained personnel can fall to that.

In other words, firearms are the equalizer in combat, and it's hard to think of what could replace them now just as it was in Medieval Europe and in Japan until the Europeans arrived in the colonial era.

TL;DR: Guns > Swords.


----------



## CynicalCirno (Nov 2, 2009)

Swords are indeed cool.
But when looking at the present, mobile XM307 would be a gift for me to carry.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Nov 2, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> Browning 1903, methinks.  Or a Husky clone.
> 
> Edit: nope, *I think its a Browning 1907*.



Looks like a Colt .38 Hammerless to me, but it's so gussied up, I can't be absolutely sure.  Will need to do research......... (the 1903 doesn't have a grip-safety)

But your guess is as good as mine.


Okay...

Checked, and I was wrong, it seems.  The 1903 does have a grip safety, it seems, and looks exactly like the gun pictured (without all the golden/engraved froo froo)... so, it is indeed a Colt 1903 Pocket Pistol.  Wow... two mill for a .32 ACP mousegun!

Though it could also be a 1908 Pocket Hammerless.........   >.<


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 2, 2009)

AzurePhoenix said:


> Whoops, labeled it wrong.  Too lazy to change it.  And I was referring to the 100% surface area being engraved.  Who the fuck would make a gun out of gold? Idiot.



Who the fuck would think that because somebody dipped a gun into an electric plating vat and slapped a two million price tag on it means it's actually worth that price?


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 2, 2009)

The Drunken Ace said:


> Your silly. a large open would caused by a slash has a larger surface area then a simple hole. someone with an arterial wound does not survive more then 10 minutes without attention. and when using a blade right it does not matter as you can easily pierce the heart or neck. (under arm or up under the ribs is easy to hit a heart.) Head shots are EXTREMELY hard on a moving target. Short of spec-ops and snipers they instruct to aim for the chest only.



"Simple hole" you mean that hole with the sonic projectile that liquified the internal organs, causing massive internal bleeding which either results in instant death from shock, instant death from cardiac failure (or head-shot resulting in brain damage), instant spinal cord severage and death, arteries resulting in a few minutes of bleed, liver resulting in a few seconds of bleed, or many of the other things the shock-wave alone can do? Compared to a blade that can be dodged, that can be stopped by bone, that requires close quarters, and usually will only cause a bleed. Not many slashes hit main organs.

A head-shot is quite easy compared to a throat slash.



The Drunken Ace said:


> moving target does not mean only "running or jumping" it could aslo mean just someone moving the head back and forth. and in the contexts you would use blades the target is most often unaware of your presence and is not running anywhere.


Yeah that's totally realistic compared to, y'know...stepping back when somebody's coming at you with a sword. You can't just move your head and dodge a projectile moving at 2000-3000 feet per second. That's impossible. You couldn't dodge me throwing a fucking snowball at your face, let alone a bullet.


The Drunken Ace said:


> But loud .and don't mention suppressors. They just make things harder to hear from long distance. The sound they make is distinct and quite loud. and why use a gun when you are in arms reach? waste of bullets.


Uh, suppressors work a lot more effectively than that. Within the same room you probably wouldn't be able to tell it's a gun firing, for instance the MP5 has been documented that you can -only- hear the sound of the bolt moving. Impossible to determine anything when you're in the same room as the weapon. Also a sword doesn't usually kill, especially with modern hospitals. However, a bullet the the heal (or two) takes less time, less energy, can be done close or far away, and it's pretty much near impossible to survive the ordeal.


----------



## Runefox (Nov 2, 2009)

> Your silly. a large open would caused by a slash has a larger surface area then a simple hole.



Look into cavitation. It's not a simple hole, it's a fucking CAVERN if you're using the right ammunition - Hollowpoint ammunition, in addition, mushrooms and shatters as it travels through the wound, causing even more damage. Bullets don't just shoot through someone like a laser.

Examples:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaNF467OmR8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBDzKfKX_yw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8vGXGO1XGY (this video is a little graphic at times and is an advertisement; The properties mentioned in this bullet are similar to hollowpoint ammunition and additionally the dum-dum ammunition used (unwittingly) by British Colonial forces that would eventually lead to the widespread use of hollowpoint ammunition against soft targets)

Notice how the exit "wound" is much larger than the initial point of impact. It's ripping and tearing through flesh at an exceedingly high rate, and the stresses placed on the tissues even distantly around the point of impact are stressed and torn. The deeper the bullet goes, the worse the wound is, particularly if it shatters midway through or strikes a bone.

Anyway, you can have your wakizashi; I'll pick you off with a Dragunov before you get close. =D See how much a "simple hole" can put a cramp in your day.


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 2, 2009)

Lets not forget this not-so-old LOTD: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfDoQwIAaXg


----------



## Shark_the_raptor (Nov 2, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Who the fuck would think that because somebody dipped a gun into an electric plating vat and slapped a two million price tag on it means it's actually worth that price?



I guess that's how much the gold is worth.  Dunno.

Edit:  Hrmm.  I suppose that wouldn't be enough gold to be worth 2 million.  One of a kind factor?


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 2, 2009)

Shark_the_raptor said:


> I guess that's how much the gold is worth.  Dunno.



A brick of gold twice as heavy as that gun is nowhere near that price. $300,000 max.


----------



## Shark_the_raptor (Nov 2, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> A brick of gold twice as heavy as that gun is nowhere near that price. $300,000 max.



Yeah.  Had to think about that a bit longer.  Definitely more of a showpiece than anything else.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Nov 2, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Who the fuck would think that because somebody dipped a gun into an electric plating vat and slapped a two million price tag on it means it's actually worth that price?



Part of its worth may be related to who owned it, previously... known as "provinence".


----------



## LizardKing (Nov 2, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Suppressors, sub-sonic ammunition.



Uh huh



NewfDraggie said:


> If you've ever fired a suppressed weapon, seen one fired, or watched one fired, even non-suppressed, you'd know the impact sound is damn loud enough to alert people, and it's very unique.



Okay then

And a complex sword? Are you shitting me? Ever seen a sword where you need to know how to eject a magazine? How to clear a jam? How to check the chamber for obstructions? Where the safety is? How to change fire mode? What ammo can and can't be used? How to clear a squib load?

Also, versatility. As I already said, a gun does one thing: put bullets in things. You can use it to hunt with, sure, but can you then skin what you kill with it? Can you gut it and chop up some juicy steak? Can you cut wood to make a shelter with it? Can you put it on a stick to make a spear? Can you sharpen sticks and cut vines to make improvised weapons? Can you even pick your goddamn fingernails with it? Can you fuck.


----------



## Telnac (Nov 2, 2009)

If this were a poll on style, swords would win, hands down.  But it's not.  The OP specifically mentions lethality.  A dude rushed to the ER with a giant sword wound has a FAR better chance of survival than a dude rushed to the ER with a gunshot wound.

Even at point blank range, I'd give odds to the dude with the gun.  Outside of point blank range, it's not even a contest.


----------



## LizardKing (Nov 2, 2009)

Telnac said:


> The OP specifically mentions lethality



What



Modern Fe9 said:


> The ye old argument whether swords bet guns or guns beat swords
> 
> 
> i prefer guns. the AA 12 auto shotgun


----------



## Runefox (Nov 2, 2009)

> And a complex sword? Are you shitting me? Ever seen a sword where you need to know how to eject a magazine? How to clear a jam? How to check the chamber for obstructions? Where the safety is? How to change fire mode? What ammo can and can't be used? How to clear a squib load?


As I said in my post, it isn't about knowing which end is up, it's about knowing how best to use it. As Monkey Island tells us, any fool pirate can swing a sharp piece of metal around and hope to cut something. What Monkey Island doesn't tell us is that technique with the sword is everything when fighting against others, and it's a skill that people spent their entire lives honing. Other skills come into play, as well - The ability to read and respond to your opponents movements and will, the ability to bluff an opponent into thinking you've given them an opening, the best way to hold the sword for defensive purposes and so on.

None of these things are absolutely necessary with a gun. Pick up an AK-47, slot in a magazine, pull the bolt, check the safety and let rip. Not everyone knows to do that, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to be able to fire one even accurately once that's down. In other words, there's a much smaller, almost non-existent learning curve in *effectively* using a firearm than there is in a sword, where there is virtually no need for initial instruction, but learning to use it properly can take decades. There are firearms such as sniper rifles that require a lot more practice, skill and precision, but for the most part, intensive training is absolutely not necessary, and it has been proven time and time again that even a civilian populace who have never seen or fired a weapon before can rapidly be trained and equipped as a fighting force - The CIA and KGB as two examples both have entered into these kinds of activities. Take a look at Iraq, and how prevalent the AK-47 is there, and how many people, even children, actually know how to use it.

As for maintenance? A sword requires cleaning, too, and especially sharpening unless you want to use it as a big metal club. Sharpening is something that's a bit of an artform in itself, and largely requires the use of a grinding stone to do efficiently (otherwise, you're spending your evening at it). Again, once shown how, it's very simple for most weapons, and takes far less time than for a sword.



> ...can you then skin what you kill with it? Can you gut it and chop up some juicy steak? Can you cut wood to make a shelter with it? Can you put it on a stick to make a spear? Can you sharpen sticks and cut vines to make improvised weapons? Can you even pick your goddamn fingernails with it? Can you fuck.


Maybe not all, but in the case of modern assault rifles, they're typically assigned with bayonets, modern versions of which (since WWI and even prior) are actually knives, in which case you've got a spear and a knife along with your gun as a package, and the answer to all of these things becomes "yes". In the civilian world, it's rather silly to think that anyone ever actually used a sword as a knife if they didn't have to, and in most cases, people, then and now, carry knives with them during situations where wilderness survival is necessary and while hunting. In every other case, there isn't any need - Knives are typically readily available. Besides, what if the only sword you have is a rapier or something? They can't really do any of that, either. In fact, I'm fairly sure a broadsword or a katana would be pretty bad at the whole skinning and cutting food bit, too (though you could probably sharpen a stick on it). Actually, I'd be hard-pressed to think of any sword that's decent at those kinds of things that wasn't short enough to be a dagger or a knife to begin with.


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 2, 2009)

LizardKing said:


> And a complex sword? Are you shitting me? Ever seen a sword where you need to know how to eject a magazine? How to clear a jam? How to check the chamber for obstructions? Where the safety is? How to change fire mode? What ammo can and can't be used? How to clear a squib load?


Here you go: http://z.about.com/d/asianhistory/1/0/f/8/-/-/HalfmoonCancanChuGetty.JPG
The amount of skill required to use a sword is so high I highly doubt you could swing one at all, in any type of motion that would hit anybody.



> Also, versatility. As I already said, a gun does one thing: put bullets in things. You can use it to hunt with, sure, but can you then skin what you kill with it? Can you gut it and chop up some juicy steak? Can you cut wood to make a shelter with it? Can you put it on a stick to make a spear? Can you sharpen sticks and cut vines to make improvised weapons? Can you even pick your goddamn fingernails with it? Can you fuck.



You need to learn the meaning of the word. A sword isn't versatile. Guns can do a wide range of things, a sword can not. You can not cut wood with a sword. You do not use your sword to cut up your food. You do not sharpen or cut anything with your sword or else it is useless in combat. Swords dull very easily, rust -very- easily, and the maintenance to sharpen ones sword and keep it protected requires several hours worth of work. Impossible on a battlefield, unlike a firearm where there's courses dedicated to field stripping and cleaning a weapon in seconds.

You ever use a whet stone before, or even seen one?

I've seen and witnessed suppressed weapons fireing, the impact sounds are indistinguishable from other noises. They don't give shit away. You on the other hand have probably never even fired anything higher than a .22 or you play far too many videya games where suppressiors are nowhear near their real-life counterparts for "balance" or some bs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZEH9asb17A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygl9YGM39Kc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYSXHhjbqmQ OH GOD SO LOUD. You can hear the shells hitting the ground.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtujEx0DQf8

Go go super hearing much? If you can tell that's a gun shooting you're a god. Past a few meters away and there's zero noise. This is the camera -right- next to the weapon, and we all know how much easier cameras pick up the tiniest of sounds too.


----------



## Runefox (Nov 2, 2009)

Even better than the MP5SD is the silenced Sten MK2 that the UK made; The crack you hear is from using normal ammunition. Here's with subsonic munitions. The bolt is the loudest part of the operation. You would definitely not hear that and identify it with gunfire even in an adjacent room or at any range.


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 2, 2009)

HEAR THAT THUNDEROUS ROAR: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tk4lyysjd3k


----------



## Azure (Nov 2, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Who the fuck would think that because somebody dipped a gun into an electric plating vat and slapped a two million price tag on it means it's actually worth that price?


It's a bit more complex.  It's called engraving, which is an art. Art tends to up the value of simple objects.  Hell, some asshole splashed paint all over some canvassing, and that shit is worth hundreds of millions.  I don't really know either.


----------



## CynicalCirno (Nov 2, 2009)

AUTO SHOTGUNS AND AUTO GRENADE LAUNCHERS ROX!!!
Though a pipebomb sprayer would be cool.


----------



## Gavrill (Nov 2, 2009)

I honestly like guns more than swords. Some things are just more practical for combat.


----------



## Mayfurr (Nov 2, 2009)

AzurePhoenix said:


> Whoops, labeled it wrong.  Too lazy to change it.  And I was referring to the 100% surface area being engraved.  *Who the fuck would make a gun out of gold?*



Scaramanga? ;-)


----------



## Hir (Nov 2, 2009)

I love me a nice sword. Elegant and beautiful, really gives you a sense of power.


----------



## Mayfurr (Nov 2, 2009)

There's also the point that guns scale up far more usefully than swords - in naval warfare, guns got up to 18" calibre in WW2 (the battleship _Yamato_), whereas rams - the naval equivalent of a sword - went out in the 19th century due to ships getting armoured. 

Besides, when was the last time you saw this - even in the movies?


----------



## Duality Jack (Nov 2, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> "Simple hole" you mean that hole with the sonic projectile that liquified the internal organs, causing massive internal bleeding which either results in instant death from shock, instant death from cardiac failure (or head-shot resulting in brain damage), instant spinal cord severage and death, arteries resulting in a few minutes of bleed, liver resulting in a few seconds of bleed, or many of the other things the shock-wave alone can do? Compared to a blade that can be dodged, that can be stopped by bone, that requires close quarters, and usually will only cause a bleed. Not many slashes hit main organs.
> 
> A head-shot is quite easy compared to a throat slash.
> 
> ...



I am speaking out of experience buddeh, not textbook reading.  The MP5 is the exception not the rule as it was MADE to be suppressed.and i was stating the reasons, specialized groups in our own military have a preference for blades over guns. If you have not seen or used several weapons that are suppressed and been thought how to use a combat knife or short blade, your a fool for arguing with someone with practical experience. 

EDIT: I don't even know why i should argue with people online anyhow 90% of you just use speculation and assumptions to back your opinions and never life experience or actual academic research.


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Nov 2, 2009)

Guns, being far more complex than swords, are much more customizeable.
But there's quite a bit to be said for the feel of a good blade in your hand.

Granted, I've only actually used _knives_ rather than real swords, but even so. It's a pretty different feeling.



The Drunken Ace said:


> I am speaking out of experience buddeh, not textbook reading.  The MP5 is the exception not the rule as it was MADE to be suppressed.and i was stating the reasons, specialized groups in our own military have a preference for blades over guns. If you have not seen or used several weapons that are suppressed and been thought how to use a combat knife or short blade, your a fool for arguing with someone with practical experience.
> 
> EDIT: I don't even know why i should argue with people online anyhow 90% of you just use speculation and assumptions to back your opinions and never life experience or actual academic research.


Don't bother with Newf. He's just flame-baiting, like Ty. The same tactic will work.


----------



## Steel_Wolf (Nov 2, 2009)

Well I like swords, but maybe thatâ€™s just because I like old manga. Guns are advanced but if you were getting attack would you prefer something you could block (sword) or something that might kill you instantly (gun)?


----------



## Wreth (Nov 2, 2009)

What I always found interesting to think about, is. What if for some hypothetical reason, ranged weapons were no longer used, our modern technology was only used to make melee weapos? It would be pretty interesting.


----------



## PriestRevan (Nov 2, 2009)

Swords are cooler than guns, but to be fair, an assault rifle could probably own a sword-wielding maniac.


----------



## VoidBat (Nov 2, 2009)

Guns. There is a reason why swords have taken a place in the history books. 
  That is just what they are now. History.


----------



## Telnac (Nov 2, 2009)

LizardKing said:


> What


Wow... yeah, I'm wrong!  That was a few posts in.  Nevermind.


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 2, 2009)

AzurePhoenix said:


> It's a bit more complex.  It's called engraving, which is an art. Art tends to up the value of simple objects.  Hell, some asshole splashed paint all over some canvassing, and that shit is worth hundreds of millions.  I don't really know either.


No. That's not worth two million, I'm sorry. Paintings are much different than something that's mass produced, then just dipped in gold.


The Drunken Ace said:


> I am speaking out of experience buddeh, not textbook reading.  The MP5 is the exception not the rule as it was MADE to be suppressed.and i was stating the reasons, specialized groups in our own military have a preference for blades over guns. If you have not seen or used several weapons that are suppressed and been thought how to use a combat knife or short blade, your a fool for arguing with someone with practical experience.
> 
> EDIT: I don't even know why i should argue with people online anyhow 90% of you just use speculation and assumptions to back your opinions and never life experience or actual academic research.


Several weapons are made to be suppressed, not just the MP5. And several suppressors are made to suppress weapons not originally intended to be just fine. There's no exception because -every- firearm can be suppressed in some way.

You've never been taught -anything- about firearms, swords, or anything else. Reading stuff online doesn't amount to being taught this stuff. I actually -have- been taught, however.
You're just using speculation and assumption, which you make very apparent when you say specialized groups in "your own military" use swords. No military has used swords in combat within the last twenty years, there's only one example of bayonets and that could have been fabricated. A combat knife is not a sword, confusing the two also makes it apparent you know nothing, just like saying most bullet wounds cause slow bleeds when in-fact most are within seconds.

You probably don't even know how to -hold- any sword/knife, let alone a firearm. >:


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Nov 2, 2009)

Zoopedia said:


> What I always found interesting to think about, is. What if for some hypothetical reason, ranged weapons were no longer used, our modern technology was only used to make melee weapos? It would be pretty interesting.


That's not interesting at all. We'd just run around with titanium-alloy katanas and the occasional lightsaber.


----------



## Duality Jack (Nov 2, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> You probably don't even know how to -hold- any sword/knife, let alone a firearm. >:


Canadian armed forces Certifications I have:
Gold crossed Rifles
Gold crossed Pistols,
CQC Instructor's permit. 
Informations retreval Specialization. 

I left the army as a specialist no more then 5 months ago, I could literally kill you before you scream in dozens of ways.

You are no longer worth my time.


----------



## Tycho (Nov 2, 2009)

The Drunken Ace said:


> Canadian armed forces Certifications I have:
> Gold crossed Rifles
> Gold crossed Pistols,
> CQC Instructor's permit.
> ...



Why the hell would you consider firearms a last resort in favor of knives, then? 

I mean, in CQC, maybe, yeah... but that's not what people generally think of when they think of a firefight.  And even in CQC, a well-placed pistol shot or two fired in a matter of seconds is going to be rather effective, assuming you're not using a peashooter.  A knife seems like EXTRA effort, to me, for the sole purpose of silence.  I mean, you might be better off simply breaking their necks or something, if you're that skilled.


----------



## Duality Jack (Nov 2, 2009)

Tycho said:


> Why the hell would you consider firearms a last resort in favor of knives, then?
> 
> I mean, in CQC, maybe, yeah... but that's not what people generally think of when they think of a firefight.


 note the information retreval specialist part. That means it was my and my squad mates job to not be detected get information on opposing assets and relay them back, any combat we get in is usually close and has to be quiet as possible. I cans shoot with the best of them but when you can avoid firing a weapon, use any other means possible. Silencers DAMPEN rounds, and the impacts the bullet makes in the circumstance of a miss gives you away immediately.


----------



## Tycho (Nov 2, 2009)

The Drunken Ace said:


> note the information retreval specialist part. That means it was my and my squad mates job to not be detected get information on opposing assets and relay them back, any combat we get in is usually close and has to be quiet as possible. I cans shoot with the best of them but when you can avoid firing a weapon, use any other means possible. Silencers DAMPEN rounds, and the impacts the bullet makes in the circumstance of a miss gives you away immediately.



The situation you're laying out here doesn't describe the bulk of armed engagements, though - which is what my point of contention is.


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 2, 2009)

The Drunken Ace said:


> Canadian armed forces Certifications I have:
> Gold crossed Rifles
> Gold crossed Pistols,
> CQC Instructor's permit.
> ...



You don't have "gold crossed rifles" seeing as that's not actually a medal or award given by the CF. Nor pistols, same reason. We don't teach CQC here, that's Australian. And the last one I don't even know what the hell?

You're so full of shit.
I actually do have weapons training with CF, and I actually do have CQC training with AU (week long course at Edmonton military base they had set up). It is possible you have that one, but I doubt it because you think a sword is better than a gun, when it clearly is not.


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Nov 2, 2009)

I'd like to change my vote. I originally picked guns because I'm a complete slut for customization and after-market modding, but swords are clearly better, simply because Newf and his ilk are able to use guns.


----------



## Koray (Nov 2, 2009)

I'm going with swords with this one. Especially katanas. Light-weighted, and easy to use.


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Nov 2, 2009)

DevianFur said:


> I'm going with swords with this one. Especially katanas. Light-weighted, and easy to use.


You're thinking of rapiers. Katanas are heavy and require plenty of practice. The people who demonstrate them just make it _look_ easy :V


----------



## Tycho (Nov 2, 2009)

Rigor Sardonicus said:


> You're thinking of rapiers. Katanas are heavy and require plenty of practice. The people who demonstrate them just make it _look_ easy :V



I was under the impression that rapiers are not as light as they are made out to be.

And compared to a Viking broadsword, a katana probably feels light.


----------



## Duality Jack (Nov 2, 2009)

Tycho said:


> I was under the impression that rapiers are not as light as they are made out to be.
> 
> And compared to a Viking broadsword, a katana probably feels light.


 I have use a rapier and they are Very light and razor sharp at the tip they are made to use speed instead of mass or raw power so a proper flick of the wrist can slit a neck if done right.


----------



## Koray (Nov 2, 2009)

Rigor Sardonicus said:


> You're thinking of rapiers. Katanas are heavy and require plenty of practice. The people who demonstrate them just make it _look_ easy :V


really? then the chick from Kill Bill---
Well, yeah, but it's lighter than most swords. And I don't like rapiers at all...


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Nov 2, 2009)

Tycho said:


> I was under the impression that rapiers are not as light as they are made out to be.


I think they're still lighter than most swords, but I was probably thinking of foils.



> And compared to a Viking broadsword, a katana probably feels light.


Only because it has half the metal, I wager :V



DevianFur said:


> really? then the chick from Kill Bill---
> Well, yeah, but it's lighter than most swords. And I don't like rapiers at all...


Rapiers are lame.


----------



## Shay Feral (Nov 2, 2009)

Bang bang baby!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jP7NnxR4A8I

Vinnie Jones rules!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hOFcLzZy6w


----------



## ToeClaws (Nov 2, 2009)

Insufficient information to vote accurately. :/  Guess we'll have to settle for peace.


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 2, 2009)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DzcOCyHDqc


----------



## Irreverent (Nov 2, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> Part of its worth may be related to who owned it, previously... known as "provinence".



And in addition to providence, there's also the engraver's labour and skill.  That could also account for the $2M price tag.

 All though nothing on that Browning pistol would come close to matching a fine filigree on a modern Beretta superposed.  Sigh.  A love of fine shotguns IS a financial curse. 



Rigor Sardonicus said:


> I think they're still lighter than most swords, but I was probably thinking of foils.



Yep, Foils and Epee's would be the lightest of the post-1,700's blades.




> Rapiers are lame.



Yep.  But I fence Foil, so I'm biased.


----------



## blackfuredfox (Nov 2, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> And in addition to providence, there's also the engraver's labour and skill.  That could also account for the $2M price tag.
> 
> All though nothing on that Browning pistol would come close to matching a fine filigree on a modern Beretta superposed.  Sigh.  A love of fine shotguns IS a financial curse.





blackfuredfox said:


> im pretty sure that an SAA is a revolver. like this.
> http://www.juliaauctions.com/press_releases/2008/firearm/03-08/32964x2.jpg



like this shiny SAA i posted earlier here?


----------



## Tycho (Nov 2, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> And in addition to providence, there's also the engraver's labour and skill.  That could also account for the $2M price tag.
> 
> All though nothing on that Browning pistol would come close to matching a fine filigree on a modern Beretta superposed.  Sigh.  A love of fine shotguns IS a financial curse.



Does that fine Italian craftsmanship and beautiful engraving improve your trap and skeet scores at all?


----------



## ToeClaws (Nov 2, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DzcOCyHDqc



Heh, exactly - the situation defines the winner.  At range, guns win.  They're a pretty impersonal/dishonourable win, but also an undeniable one.  At short range, the sword is more lethal.


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Nov 2, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> Yep, Foils and Epee's would be the lightest of the post-1,700's blades.


Meh, fuck 'em.



> Yep.  But I fence Foil, so I'm biased.


Those are even more lame.
If I want a _whippy_ sword, I'll buy some bandsaws and make an urumi, or just break the antenna off a car :V


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 2, 2009)

ToeClaws said:


> Heh, exactly - the situation defines the winner.  At range, guns win.  They're a pretty impersonal/dishonourable win, but also an undeniable one.  At short range, the sword is more lethal.



Honor is a fabrication invented to make the fighting grounds equal or to justify death/loss. If you have an advantage over an opponent in a life or death situation honor has no meaning, you take the advantage. Dishonorable notions are lies to make the loser feel better. And I would beg to differ about a sword being more lethal at any range, seeing as a firearm works at all ranges and you must swing a sword (or stab with one) yet only pull a trigger for a gun.

But I still think swords are much more elegant, requiring much more skill too. ;3


----------



## Krevan (Nov 2, 2009)

Guns hands down, though everyone needs a good knife


----------



## Ikrit (Nov 2, 2009)

a shotgun at pointblank is better then a sword at pointblank


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Nov 2, 2009)

Sword. It feels more "personal".


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 2, 2009)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> Sword. It feels more "personal".


Hmmm...you see this is a valid point I suppose, then again I have to ask how you came to such conclusions. Extensive testing? o..O


----------



## LizardKing (Nov 2, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> I've seen and witnessed suppressed weapons fireing, the impact sounds are indistinguishable from other noises. They don't give shit away



I repeat, this is YOUR OWN POST



NewfDraggie said:


> If you've ever fired a suppressed weapon, seen one fired, or watched one fired, even non-suppressed, you'd know the impact sound is damn loud enough to alert people, and it's very unique.



Make up your damn mind, and stop altering shit just so you're always "right".

Furthermore, if "gun" can be anything from pistol to a minigun, then surely a knife can count as a "sword", in which case, yes, you can use it to cut wood, skin animals, etc. Even a machete would do, that's pretty much a sword. And a bayonet is just a mounted sword, so it's basically arguing for the other side. If a gun was superior in every way, why would you need a bayonet? Exactly.

I don't need to refute all your 'arguments' (lol), I just want you to admit that a gun is not superior in "every way". Go on, admit you're wrong for once, I dare you.



NewfDraggie said:


> Here you go: http://z.about.com/d/asianhistory/1/0/f/8/-/-/HalfmoonCancanChuGetty.JPG
> The amount of skill required to use a sword is so high I highly doubt you could swing one at all, in any type of motion that would hit anybody.



Oh way to go picking what is probably the most ridiculous and over-complex sword ever made. Mind if I make all my arguments against "guns" revolve around a GAU-8 Avenger? Thanks.


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 2, 2009)

LizardKing said:


> I repeat, this is YOUR OWN POST


Yes, it's very unique and you can be alerted enough to investigate, especially if you know what it sounds like. However most people don't know what it sounds like, and the noise is akin to slamming a rocking as hard as you can against another rock. it does not give away your position, and surely isn't any less subtle than a sword. Seeing as you have range as well. But I'm fairly certain the sounds of running footsteps, or even a quiet shuffle/creep is much more distinguishable to a impact of a sub-sonic round. Ergo firearms are more stealthy.

As for that quote about justification for videogame AI, nice try; I still feel the game would be pretty boring is AI stood there while you pinged them one at a time, but I feel it's relatively accurate that after twenty impacts from a MP5SD around them should alert them to your presence. I mean, if somebody threw twenty rocks at a wall near you would you notice?


> Furthermore, if "gun" can be anything from pistol to a minigun, then surely a knife can count as a "sword", in which case, yes, you can use it to cut wood, skin animals, etc. Even a machete would do, that's pretty much a sword. And a bayonet is just a mounted sword, so it's basically arguing for the other side. If a gun was superior in every way, why would you need a bayonet? Exactly.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sword
The last documented use of bayonets was a few years ago, something I believe to be false to be honest (who runs out of ammo in a hot-zone, then decides to charge armed insurgents...then the entire squad comes out alive? Bull shit. They got stabby stabby and had to make an excuse for the wounds/bloody equipment). Before that documented use it was a few decades.


> I don't need to refute all your 'arguments' (lol), I just want you to admit that a gun is not superior in "every way". Go on, admit you're wrong for once, I dare you.


There's nothing a sword can do a gun can't do better in some way.


> Oh way to go picking what is probably the most ridiculous and over-complex sword ever made. Mind if I make all my arguments against "guns" revolve around a GAU-8 Avenger? Thanks.


i said I've seen swords that are complex...I proved what I said...you asked for proof. I don't see an issue here. I've seen pretty simplistic guns too, and very complex ones as well. But the required amount of training to be "good" with a sword and "good" with a firearm is vastly different, no matter how complex to tool it will boil down to the user and his skill. A moron with a gun will beat a 40-year expert with a sword any day.


----------



## Azure (Nov 2, 2009)

Everyone, quick, STFU!


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 2, 2009)

AzurePhoenix said:


> Everyone, quick, STFU!


Late to the party. 


NewfDraggie said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DzcOCyHDqc



But yes, reasonable evidence seems to draw a reasonable, and historically accurate conclusion.


----------



## LizardKing (Nov 2, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Yes, it's very unique and you can be alerted enough to investigate, especially if you know what it sounds like. However most people don't know what it sounds likeIrrelevant., and the noise is akin to slamming a rocking as hard as you can against another rock.That sounds pretty loud to me. it does not give away your position, and surely isn't any less subtle than a sword. Pretty sure a sword entering some flesh would be quieter than a rock hitting another rock, not even counting the bullet passing through and hitting something else, or missing and have them stand around screaming.Seeing as you have range as well. But I'm fairly certain the sounds of running footsteps, or even a quiet shuffle/creep is much more distinguishable to a impact of a sub-sonic round Not on grass.. Ergo firearms are more stealthy.



Terrain is not an issue, as using a gun may well involve moving over the same terrain unless you're sniping. Being able to recognise it does not change how loud it is. And if you _do_ recognise it, then "it's very unique and you can be alerted enough to investigate". 



NewfDraggie said:


> As for that quote about justification for videogame AI[blah blah]



If you'd actually read that and comprehended my post, it was one shot, not 20. But that's off-topic anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sword
Yes, let's look at that shall we.


			
				Sword said:
			
		

> Sword
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Jump to: navigation, search
> "Swords" redirects here. For other uses, see Swords (disambiguation).
> ...


Awesome, different swords!


			
				Types of swords said:
			
		

> Americas
> 
> * Macana
> * Macuahuitl
> * Machete


A machete you say?


			
				Machete said:
			
		

> the machete is frequently used to cut through rainforest undergrowth and for agricultural purposes (e.g. cutting sugarcane). Besides this, in Latin America it is not uncommon to see a machete being used for such household tasks as cutting large foodstuffs into pieces â€” much as a cleaver is used â€” or to perform crude cutting tasks such as making simple wooden handles for other tools. It is also common to see people using machetes for their odd jobs such as splitting open coconuts, working the lawns, or other related activities.





			
				Ida (sword) said:
			
		

> The Yoruba people use this sword for hunting, war and other uses.



Wow, that sounds pretty fucking versatile to me.




			
				Machete said:
			
		

> There's nothing a sword can do a gun can't do better in some way.



How about amputate a limb?



NewfDraggie said:


> i said I've seen swords that are complex...I proved what I said...you asked for proof. I don't see an issue here. I've seen pretty simplistic guns too, and very complex ones as well.



You showed me one complex sword. Excluding hand-made botch jobs, even the simplest gun would have at least a safety on it, and would still need reloading. Yes, there is may be _one_ sword that is bloody hard to use, but 99.9% of guns are more complex by far than any sword.


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 2, 2009)

LizardKing said:


> Terrain is not an issue, as using a gun may well involve moving over the same terrain unless you're sniping. Being able to recognise it does not change how loud it is. And if you _do_ recognise it, then "it's very unique and you can be alerted enough to investigate".


You'll be dead before you heard anything, however.



> A machete you say?


Not a sword considered on par with other swords intended for combat use, in combat use. So it's not versatile. If you use it for cutting it'll still dull like a bitch and become useless. Just because you can say xxx sword is good at this and xxx sword is good at that doesn't mean it's versatile. I mean, by your logic I can say firearms take down buildings, tanks, aircraft, and etc. When you know I simply mean small arms. Cool story.


> How about amputate a limb?


Uh...yeah it can do that. I wouldn't say sanitary, but a sword is just as dangerous. but then again, at what point does one encounter amputation as a factor when comparing two weapons? Seems like you're clawing to get a grip on something you can use, but all you come up with is debatable. A few shots from some firearms can sever any limb, if you wanted to do specifically that for some odd reason. If you're going to pull "for medical" card then a sword isn't a good idea either, you can't do it on yourself. If it's not serrated it'll require a slash, which could easily bounce on the bone and kill the patient or you could miss and kill him. If it is serrated that's one heavy tool for such a job, a knife would be much more effective.


> You showed me one complex sword. Excluding hand-made botch jobs, even the simplest gun would have at least a safety on it, and would still need reloading. Yes, there is may be _one_ sword that is bloody hard to use, but 99.9% of guns are more complex by far than any sword.


Uh...lots of firearms have no safety, I mean the first lugers and the makarov's lacked such a feature and this was in WWII, long after the invention of firearms. If you consider flicking a switch "complex" that's pathetic, same goes for reloading. I would say wielding a sword in any skillful manor that's combat worthy is -far- more difficult and complex than the mechanics behind a firearm. Hell, look at revolvers and the simplistic older designs.


----------



## LizardKing (Nov 2, 2009)

Jesus christ, it's really not that difficult to understand.

Let's make this simple for you.

Disregard training, you need that for both

The basic operation of a standard firearm (reloading, safety, cocking if needed) is more complex than knowing which end of a sword to hold (hint: it's not the end that cuts your hand): Yes or no.

Say a Glock 17 vs a Katana or similar, that fair to you?

Let's at least try this one thing, and maybe we can go from there.


----------



## Dass (Nov 2, 2009)

LizardKing said:


> Jesus christ, it's really not that difficult to understand.
> 
> Let's make this simple for you.
> 
> ...



Yes, but if you can get that straight, the gun's easier for a total moron to kill someone with.


----------



## blackfuredfox (Nov 2, 2009)

LizardKing said:


> Jesus christ, it's really not that difficult to understand.
> 
> Let's make this simple for you.
> 
> ...



but there are factors that inhibit both. like one hard swing with a sword could through off your center of gravity, and you hit the ground leaving you exposed. also with the Glock you have recoil, not much but enough if you dont expect it.


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Nov 2, 2009)

Dass said:


> Yes, but if you can get that straight, the gun's easier for a total moron to kill someone with.


This. Point and click. You don't even need to be in reasonably good shape.


----------



## Rilvor (Nov 2, 2009)

Mmmm....halberds...


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 2, 2009)

LizardKing said:


> Jesus christ, it's really not that difficult to understand.
> 
> Let's make this simple for you.
> 
> Disregard training, you need that for both


LOL. Wow. You can't wield a sword, but I'm sure I could train you how to fire a gun in a few minutes. You could never wield a sword right now however. People train many years to do such a thing.



> The basic operation of a standard firearm (reloading, safety, cocking if needed) is more complex than knowing which end of a sword to hold (hint: it's not the end that cuts your hand): Yes or no.


So you compare USING the gun to HOLDING the sword? Cool.

How about putting the gun into your hand, the grip is a perfect fit for a human hand and the trigger guard/trigger fits that finger of yours flawlessly. It's designed to fit into your hand, and from there all you have to do is squeeze your finger slightly and blam, you can kill anybody.

If you think a sword is easier to use than a firearm then you're way out to lunch.
If you think a sword is better at killing than a firearm then you're in the same place.
Look at this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vzf5TD4An1I
That's the basics of all handguns pretty much, besides revolvers. But for every sword there's different techniques which require weeks, months, or years to master and actually use in combat, and the easiest defense is simply standing back like they do in this video a few times: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFGPCTMp2cw


----------



## blackfuredfox (Nov 2, 2009)

Rigor Sardonicus said:


> This. Point and click. You don't even need to be in reasonably good shape.



i agree, if you cant point it the right way though, you deserve death for that kind of stupidity.


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 2, 2009)

blackfuredfox said:


> i agree, if you cant point it the right way though, you deserve death for that kind of stupidity.



Which will usually occur. x3


----------



## Dass (Nov 2, 2009)

blackfuredfox said:


> i agree, if you cant point it the right way though, you deserve death for that kind of stupidity.





NewfDraggie said:


> Which will usually occur. x3



These two posts remind me of Plaxico Burress.


----------



## blackfuredfox (Nov 2, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Which will usually occur. x3



then some ass made these for them.
http://www.theodoresworld.net/pics/0608/backwardgImage1.jpg


----------



## Modern Fe9 (Nov 2, 2009)

blackfuredfox said:


> then some ass made these for them.
> http://www.theodoresworld.net/pics/0608/backwardgImage1.jpg



official Russian roulette tool


----------



## Roose Hurro (Nov 2, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Several weapons are made to be suppressed, not just the MP5. And several suppressors are made to suppress weapons not originally intended to be just fine. *There's no exception* because -every- firearm can be suppressed in some way.



Actually, there is... they're called "revolvers".  Can't get away from the barrel/cylinder gap, unless you use one of these:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagant_M1895




LizardKing said:


> Furthermore, *if "gun" can be anything from pistol to a minigun, then surely a knife can count as a "sword"*, in which case, yes, you can use it to cut wood, skin animals, etc. Even a machete would do, that's pretty much a sword. And a bayonet is just a mounted sword, so it's basically arguing for the other side. If a gun was superior in every way, why would you need a bayonet? Exactly.



No, a knife can't count as a sword, any more than a pistol can count as a rifle...




AzurePhoenix said:


> Everyone, quick, STFU!



LOL!  Good one, Azure...


----------



## 8-bit (Nov 2, 2009)

I like swords.


----------



## Irreverent (Nov 2, 2009)

blackfuredfox said:


> like this shiny SAA i posted earlier here?



Definitely a SAA.   Pity that the holster wear has taken the gold plate off the top-strap and hammer spur.



Tycho said:


> Does that fine Italian craftsmanship and beautiful engraving improve your trap and skeet scores at all?



Yer damn right it does!  The mere presence of a Baretta, Krieghoff or Parazzi  O/U shotgun on a skeet fields is enough to frighten the clay skeet into shattering as soon as they leave the trap house. Olympic medals have been award solely on the basis of who was carrying a set of Holland and Holland tubes, without so much as firing a single shot.  (and if you value your external danglely genitalia, don't tell my mate any differently :twisted: )



ToeClaws said:


> Heh, exactly - the situation defines the winner.  At range, guns win.  They're a pretty impersonal/dishonourable win, but also an undeniable one.  At short range, the sword is more lethal.



Never!  There is nothing dishonourable about winning the fight and staying alive.  Rule number one, bring a gun.  Rule number two, bring a gun of sufficient calibre.  Rule number three, bring all your buddies with guns.



Roose Hurro said:


> Actually, there is... they're called "revolvers".  Can't get away from the barrel/cylinder gap, unless you use one of these:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagant_M1895



Yep, that is the one true revolver that can be silenced.  Although I'm told hand loading 7.62x38mmR ammo is a bitch.  Tradex brought a tonne of these into Canada surplus in the last two or three years, but never sourced the ammo or the conversion cylinders.  Jean at PS Militaria in Quebec has them for $225CDN.  You know you want one...


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Nov 2, 2009)

^ I want one :3



Roose Hurro said:


> Actually, there is... they're called "revolvers".  Can't get away from the barrel/cylinder gap, unless you use one of these:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagant_M1895


When I go to the restaurant, I always bring my Nagant.

(It's from a song, but I can't find the name anywhere...)


----------



## InfernalTobias (Nov 2, 2009)

I say ethier. I'm skill with both, so for me it doesn't matter.


----------



## LizardKing (Nov 3, 2009)

Obviously a yes or no question is still asking too much.


----------



## Runefox (Nov 3, 2009)

> Gold crossed Rifles
> Gold crossed Pistols


I can find no information about "Gold crossed Pistols" in reference to the Canadian Forces; Gold-crossed Rifles denotes a first-class marksman in the *Army Cadets*. Methinks if you wanted to sound like you really knew what you were talking about, you'd state what, exactly, those qualifications were, rather than just describing the badges. Furthermore, the only "information rerieval" in regard to the Canadian Forces' domain refers to the Information Management Group - Electronic warfare and countermeasures, communications and computer systems and networks; Not James Bond or Sam Fisher-esque espionage. In fact, there doesn't seem to be a specific role assigned to "information retrieval", but there is one for "information services". Mm, real killer material.

Just like no fighter pilot worth his salt would willingly engage in a close-in dogfight if it were possible to avoid it, no infantryman, no matter what field they found themselves in, would "prioritize" their weaponry in such a manner as to preclude firearms unless absolutely necessary (unless of course they were a _noncombatant_ or an engineer or similar profession - In which case they would carry no weapon or a standard sidearm). Even the most elite special forces in the world (JTF2, US Navy SEALS, Delta Force, Spetznaz, SAS, GSG-9...) wouldn't dream of jumping into any sort of combat situation with a focus on melee weaponry of any kind. The reason? It's suicide, and compromises the team and the mission. For that matter, even if they missed a shot, the likelihood that someone would be able to figure out where the shot came from in enough time (or at all!) to properly react before getting shot, themselves, is extremely low, _if_ they even identified it as a gunshot to begin with.

In other words, you're no JTF2 - You were some technician who passed basic and received a Judo class and thinks he's hot because of it. Better than I could do, but don't belittle those who have the experience by trying to pass yourself off as something you're not to feel like a big man on the internet. No Canadian Forces soldier worth anyone's time or the training they received would ever say things like "I could literally kill you before you scream in dozens of ways". Absolutely disgraceful and disrespectful. Whatever qualifications you *actually do* have, you don't deserve a single one of them.



> The basic operation of a standard firearm (reloading, safety, cocking if needed) is more complex than knowing which end of a sword to hold (hint: it's not the end that cuts your hand): Yes or no.


OK, so disregarding training, you can pick up and swing a sword much more easily than you can operate a pistol, but in fact, you will be just as useless with said sword as you would with a pistol and no knowledge of how to use it. Going up against another opponent with a sword, without experience or training, is purely suicide - You have almost zero chance of survival, and hell, if you clash swords, you'd probably drop it from the impact because you're not holding it properly. If you had a pistol and had a *minute* of training with it (almost none at all) to figure out how to load and fire it, you'd have a fairly decent chance of winning against another person with a pistol by comparison. Firearms are equalizers. There isn't much finesse involved, and in many cases, it's who can get off the lethal - or incapacitating - shot first, and while more experienced operators are much more likely to be able to place a shot, there's a lot less up in the air when talking about bullets. You tell them where to go, and they go. Even if it's centre of mass, you're doing damage where with a sword you'd need to get past the enemy's sword and defences first in order to deal even a glancing blow, something a total idiot couldn't do.

Training with a firearm takes far less time (literally minutes before being more than capable of ending a life) than training with a sword (which takes years before being able to rattle sabres with someone with any chance of success). Look at how easily people pick up things such as paintball and airsoft by comparison to something like fencing - It's literally so simple that any idiot can do it, while fencing takes years of practice and dedication to be any good at all.

The long and the short of it is, the learning curve for a sword is STEEP. The learning curve for a firearm isn't even a speed bump by comparison. You can pick up a sword and swing it like a moron, and if that's your only definition of easier, then sure, the sword wins out, because you're swinging an extension of your arm and as far as actually figuring out how to do THAT, the curve's flat; It is literally second nature to us. But swords aren't meant to be flung wildly through the air any more than pistols and rifles are meant to be used as shovels. Any opponent who knows what he or she is doing will rip you apart before you can say "ouch" if you had no idea what kind of stance to use, what a 'parry' is, how to read your opponent, how to bait your opponent, and so on. And the only way to learn that is through *years and years of hard practice*. The US Army spends a *few weeks* for rifle qualification training.

Also, happy 2600 to me.


----------



## LizardKing (Nov 3, 2009)

Maybe this is still the wrong approach.

When I'm back from work and able to type more, I'll try something else.

I WILL NOT FAIL >:[


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 3, 2009)

Runefox said:


> I can find no information about "Gold crossed Pistols" in reference to the Canadian Forces; Gold-crossed Rifles denotes a first-class marksman in the *Army Cadets*. Methinks if you wanted to sound like you really knew what you were talking about, you'd state what, exactly, those qualifications were, rather than just describing the badges. Furthermore, the only "information rerieval" in regard to the Canadian Forces' domain refers to the Information Management Group - Electronic warfare and countermeasures, communications and computer systems and networks; Not James Bond or Sam Fisher-esque espionage. In fact, there doesn't seem to be a specific role assigned to "information retrieval", but there is one for "information services". Mm, real killer material.
> 
> Just like no fighter pilot worth his salt would willingly engage in a close-in dogfight if it were possible to avoid it, no infantryman, no matter what field they found themselves in, would "prioritize" their weaponry in such a manner as to preclude firearms unless absolutely necessary (unless of course they were a _noncombatant_ or an engineer or similar profession - In which case they would carry no weapon or a standard sidearm). Even the most elite special forces in the world (JTF2, US Navy SEALS, Delta Force, Spetznaz, SAS, GSG-9...) wouldn't dream of jumping into any sort of combat situation with a focus on melee weaponry of any kind. The reason? It's suicide, and compromises the team and the mission. For that matter, even if they missed a shot, the likelihood that someone would be able to figure out where the shot came from in enough time (or at all!) to properly react before getting shot, themselves, is extremely low, _if_ they even identified it as a gunshot to begin with.
> 
> ...


This. All of this. Fuck yeah brah.


----------



## Steel_Wolf (Nov 3, 2009)

Here http://www.spike.com/video/samurai-swords-vs/2937228


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 3, 2009)

Steel_Wolf said:


> Here http://www.spike.com/video/samurai-swords-vs/2937228



Several issues here:
Lead bullet, softer than copper or other metals.
Hollow Point bullet, designed for flesh, FMJ or armor piercing (or API) would have destroyed the sword.
No human reflex can do such a thing.
They never measured the force the bullet had on the sword, you could clearly see the sword moving and we don't know how the sword was locked down or how much torque it had on impact. For all we know that blade would have been shot out of any humans hands from the impact.

Here you go. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sHTJAKN-5k


----------



## Irreverent (Nov 3, 2009)

Runefox said:


> I can find no information about "Gold crossed Pistols" in reference to the Canadian Forces; Gold-crossed Rifles denotes a first-class marksman in the *Army Cadets*.



In his defense, the crossed rifles is also the army marksmanship badge,   The crossed pistols patch may also still be used in some units.  Unification messed a lot of stuff up in terms of insignia.  I've made some inquiries with some shooting buddies of mine.



> The long and the short of it is, the learning curve for a sword is STEEP. The learning curve for a firearm isn't even a speed bump by comparison.



Ahem.  I must quibble with this.  Once you've learned the basic sword attacks,  parries, ripostes, redoublements and lunges the learning curve with a sword is over.  You can turn out a capable swordsman in about the same time as you can train a rifleman.  Most of the sport Fencing and Sabre salons need about 8 hours before they'll let you loose on the piste. 

After that, its more a function of athletic prowess; you either have it or you don't.  I guess you could counter argue that learning to read your opponent as he telegraphs his attack is a skill that doesn't exist outside of precision rifle (sniping, gawd i hate that term); so I'll give you that.

But as a 20 year student of the shotgun, rifle and pistol, I'm still learning.  Hell, I didn't really start learning until I started coaching.


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 3, 2009)

The "gold crossed rifles" and "gold crossed pistols" were never awarded separately, they're part of the same award (pistols and rifles were the same award, different emblems for different years; rifles replaced pistols. The badge happened to just be gold weapons.) and that's cadets, not CF. If that is what he's talking about I had "gold crossed", actually called marksmanship badges, when I was about thirteen. So his "experience" with weapons I had when I wasn't even sixteen.

And yeah, the "basic sword attacks, patties, ripostes, redoublements and lunges" aren't as basic as firearms, are they? Those things take months to years to get down-pat, when firearms take minutes to hours.


----------



## Irreverent (Nov 3, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> The "gold crossed rifles" and "gold crossed pistols" were never awarded separately, they're part of the same award (pistols and rifles were the same award, different emblems for different years; rifles replaced pistols. The badge happened to just be gold weapons.) and that's cadets, not CF. If that is what he's talking about I had "gold crossed", actually called marksmanship badges, when I was about thirteen. So his "experience" with weapons I had when I wasn't even sixteen.



I didn't say they weren't used by the Cadets, I said they may be common to cadets, reg and reserve forces.  And I did say I was going to make inquiries.  I've a few mates in the Brass at PPCLI, and Wentworth that collect uniforms.  I've sent email, mostly to satisfy my own curiosity.



> And yeah, the "basic sword attacks, patties, ripostes, redoublements and lunges" aren't as basic as firearms, are they? Those things take months to years to get down-pat, when firearms take minutes to hours.



Re-read that last part I wrote.  The basic sword movements above are no different than the fundamentals of grip, stance, site alignment, breathing, trigger control, follow through and tempo used to teach basic marksmanship. The can both be learned in a few hours.  About 8 hours on the range or on the piste.

Learning to place 10 shots in a Fig 11 target at 100m can be taught in a day.  Those same 10 shots into 1 MOA at 1,000m takes a few years more.  Temperature, wind, barometric pressure, and mirage don't usually play a big part in the average swordfight. If they do, you're doing it wrong.


----------



## blackfuredfox (Nov 3, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> I didn't say they weren't used by the Cadets, I said they may be common to cadets, reg and reserve forces.  And I did say I was going to make inquiries.  I've a few mates in the Brass at PPCLI, and Wentworth that collect uniforms.  I've sent email, mostly to satisfy my own curiosity.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


i agree, both take time to get good at, anyone can swing a sword, or pull a trigger, but it takes time to do it right.


----------



## Duality Jack (Nov 3, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> I didn't say they weren't used by the Cadets, I said they may be common to cadets, reg and reserve forces.  And I did say I was going to make inquiries.  I've a few mates in the Brass at PPCLI, and Wentworth that collect uniforms.  I've sent email, mostly to satisfy my own curiosity.


All fairness most of the "Weapons certifications" I qualified when cross training with the RCMP. Look into the certifications they hand out.


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 3, 2009)

I'm sorry, a sword takes far longer training than just eight hours. In weeks worth of training you still would have issues killing somebody with a sword. All they have to do is run away from you anyway.

A gun takes like five minutes to learn everything you need to know for killing somebody instantly (or wounding somebody with a fatal shot) from any respectable distance.


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 3, 2009)

The Drunken Ace said:


> All fairness most of the "Weapons certifications" I qualified when cross training with the RCMP. Look into the certifications they hand out.



You're 20 years old. It's impossible to have "trained" with the RCMP at your age. My boyfriend has a friend that's going to become a RCMP, he has to take one year of university then he has to apply to the RCMP, be accepted, then do a few years worth of courses with them. There's no way you trained with them, other than possibly asking them questions or something. Which isn't training. If you're not a cadet for RCMP academy then you're not getting any training directly from them. Also the CF don't cross-train with them, at least not to my knowledge they don't and a quick google search pulls up nothing.

Maybe I'm missing something?


----------



## Jashwa (Nov 3, 2009)

whether guns or swords "beat" each other?

I think we know which wins a fight, seeing as there are no sword battles anymore. 

I like guns better, though.  Swords are too expensive and don't have any uses anymore.  Plus, shooting guns is fun.


----------



## Duality Jack (Nov 3, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Maybe I'm missing something?


Yes and I don't care to explain why specialists in the military crosstrain with the RCMP. If you can't figure it out just shoot yourself now with your beloved gun.


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 3, 2009)

The Drunken Ace said:


> Yes and I don't care to explain why specialists in the military crosstrain with the RCMP. If you can't figure it out just shoot yourself now with your beloved gun.


You're 20 years old, you can't be a specialist (well, in the US specialist means nothing however in CF specialist is a bit different...mmm you could be one but it still means little). You can't be an officer, ether (well you can, but I doubt you are because it takes talent to do so and it's very rare). I also don't own any firearms, civilians don't need them and I'm now a civilian.


----------



## Jashwa (Nov 3, 2009)

The Drunken Ace said:


> Yes and I don't care to explain why specialists in the military crosstrain with the RCMP. If you can't figure it out just shoot yourself now with your beloved gun.


Lol @ you thinking Newf argues for guns.


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 3, 2009)

Jashwa said:


> Lol @ you thinking Newf argues for guns.


Hey hey hey, I like guns. I just don't like them in civilian (or generally incompetent) hands. ;3
But ilu anyway.


----------



## Jashwa (Nov 3, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Hey hey hey, I like guns. I just don't like them in civilian (or generally incompetent) hands. ;3
> But ilu anyway.


But we aren't related D:


----------



## Irreverent (Nov 3, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> I'm sorry, a sword takes far longer training than just eight hours. In weeks worth of training you still would have issues killing somebody with a sword. All they have to do is run away from you anyway.



As I said, athletic prowess is part of the equation.  But in modern sport fencing, the average phrase (attack, parry, re-attack) is about 1/8th of a second long.  There's very little running away from even a competent amateur with a Foil, Epee or Rapier.  And you can get proficient in about 8 hours.  That's what the average Foil club will advice before starting to sport fence.  Mastery may take a little longer, like with precision shooting.



> A gun takes like five minutes to learn everything you need to know for killing somebody instantly (or wounding somebody with a fatal shot) from any respectable distance.



And I'll agree to that, although we probably have different opinions of what a respectable distance is.



Jashwa said:


> whether guns or swords "beat" each other?
> 
> I think we know which wins a fight, seeing as there are no sword battles anymore.



Quite likely the best summation of the thread!



> Swords are too expensive and don't have any uses anymore.



Au contraire!  The health benefits of 60 minutes of fencing are not be discounted.  Its highly arobic.  The theraputic benefit of beating the shit out of someone with a Sabre or Foil is worth it for that reason alone.  The fact that your opponent has a sword too just makes it all the more interesting. 



> Plus, shooting guns is fun.



Amen to that.  I worship at the the Church of Moses* every Wednesday night.

*John Moses Browning that is.


----------



## TopazThunder (Nov 3, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> Au contraire!  The health benefits of 60 minutes of fencing are not be discounted.  Its highly arobic.  The theraputic benefit of beating the shit out of someone with a Sabre or Foil is worth it for that reason alone.  The fact that your opponent has a sword too just makes it all the more interesting.



Don't forget the strategy and mental discipline involved. Which is why its so fun; pretty much a full body and mind workout.


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 3, 2009)

Yeah shooting can be fun, but fencing is really exciting. Yes in that way. Oh god in that way. How you work up such a sweat, dodging left and parrying right.


Jashwa said:


> But we aren't related D:


It's ok, don't stop our forbidden love.


----------



## virus (Nov 3, 2009)

Heres a rule of thumb.

Guns require ammo.
Swords do not. 

That being said. A gun will win until its out of ammo.


----------



## Duality Jack (Nov 3, 2009)

Shotgun with a bayonet


----------



## blackfuredfox (Nov 3, 2009)

The Drunken Ace said:


> Shotgun with a bayonet



what of someone just stands you know, maybe about 100 yards away, with a M-1903 that has a Bayonet, then you are screwed.


----------



## Irreverent (Nov 3, 2009)

Clafier said:


> Don't forget the strategy and mental discipline involved. Which is why its so fun; pretty much a full body and mind workout.



I didn't mean to discount it.  Sword fighting is 50% mental.  Outsmarting a 20-something with a foil makes my day!  But target shooting also requires a full mind work out, and clarity of thought that has to be experienced to be believed.  Biathlon shooters pull their  shots between heart beats...awesome biometric feedback and control.  I could never master it.


----------



## Duality Jack (Nov 3, 2009)

blackfuredfox said:


> what of someone just stands you know, maybe about 100 yards away, with a M-1903 that has a Bayonet, then you are screwed.


  a longbarrel 10 gauge is accurate to arounf 85 yards if using good slugs. so just wait till they get closer.


----------



## Zrcalo (Nov 3, 2009)

it's like that scene in indianna jones when a ninja comes out throwing and juggling swords in his face and then indy shoots the bastard.

lol.


----------



## virus (Nov 3, 2009)

Zrcalo said:


> it's like that scene in indianna jones when a ninja comes out throwing and juggling swords in his face and then indy shoots the bastard.
> 
> lol.



I love that scene. It makes me pop a chuckle everytime


----------



## blackfuredfox (Nov 3, 2009)

The Drunken Ace said:


> a longbarrel 10 gauge is accurate to arounf 85 yards if using good slugs. so just wait till they get closer.



but they have  30.06 Rifle, why in hell would they get closer?


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Nov 3, 2009)

Zrcalo said:


> it's like that scene in indianna jones when a ninja comes out throwing and juggling swords in his face and then indy shoots the bastard.
> 
> lol.


Azure posted it already.
FYI, ninjas don't wear turbans.


----------



## Ninjawolf10 (Nov 3, 2009)

A sword...only reason it take pactice and honor to weild one...a gun...point,click,bang...dead....LOL....

honestly I'm for lightsabers...XD


----------



## Modern Fe9 (Nov 3, 2009)

blackfuredfox said:


> what of someone just stands you know, maybe about 100 yards away, with a M-1903 that has a Bayonet, then you are screwed.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOPuEuJx1MY


----------



## Jashwa (Nov 3, 2009)

A better shotgun.


----------



## Duality Jack (Nov 3, 2009)

blackfuredfox said:


> but they have  30.06 Rifle, why in hell would they get closer?


 then its simple you wait. Besides I like CQ environments anyhow. Bulding clearing etc.


----------



## Modern Fe9 (Nov 3, 2009)

Jashwa said:


> A better shotgun.



that is the shotgun that i posted in the very first post


----------



## Jashwa (Nov 3, 2009)

Modern Fe9 said:


> that is the shotgun that i posted in the very first post


I didn't read past you talking about whether guns or swords "beat" each other.


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Nov 3, 2009)

Modern Fe9 said:


> that is the shotgun that i posted in the very first post


Jashwa doesn't read OPs. It goes against his code of ethics as a dedicated member of the peanut gallery.


----------



## Jashwa (Nov 3, 2009)

Rigor Sardonicus said:


> Jashwa doesn't read stupid OPs. It goes against his code of ethics as a dedicated member of the peanut gallery.


Fixed.


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Nov 3, 2009)

Jashwa said:


> Rigor Sardonicus said:
> 
> 
> > Jashwa doesn't read.
> ...


Perfected.


----------



## Jashwa (Nov 3, 2009)

Rigor Sardonicus said:


> Perfected.


Yes, I know every post is stupid.  That's why I avoid them.


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Nov 3, 2009)

Jashwa said:


> Yes, I know every post is stupid.  That's why I avoid them.


With that statement, you just said that all of your own posts are stupid.
Which is 100% correct, so why not just stop posting?


----------



## Runefox (Nov 3, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Yeah shooting can be fun, but fencing is really exciting. Yes in that way. Oh god in that way. How you work up such a sweat, dodging left and parrying right.



http://forbiddenplanet.co.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/George Takei Sulu fencing.jpg .
_*.*_


----------



## Irreverent (Nov 3, 2009)

blackfuredfox said:


> what of someone just stands you know, maybe about 100 yards away, with a M-1903 that has a Bayonet, then you are screwed.



You point a priceless Springfield'03 at me, and bayonet or not, I'mma gonna kick your ass...an original '03 should be up on a wall, cleaned weekly and worshiped daily.  Don't take my word for it, ask your Gunny.

And if someone gives you a Rockola M1 Garand or an IBM M1 Carbine, you PM me FIRST!  If you don't, I'll make your DI look like a prom date... :twisted:



Runefox said:


> http://forbiddenplanet.co.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/George Takei Sulu fencing.jpg .
> *.*



He's holding an Epee in 4th (quatro) position.  After I got over the fact its George Takei, i'd beat 4th, lunge, double lounge and land a touch.  Maybe fleche right if I had too.


----------



## Jashwa (Nov 3, 2009)

Rigor Sardonicus said:


> With that statement, you just said that all of your own posts are stupid.


Exactly.

Because it's fun ^_^


----------



## lupineshadow (Nov 5, 2009)

My preference is a sword. But if I were in a fighting situation I would carry both. Something simple like an AK, but for close-up fights or any sort of fight that didn't require a gun for practicality, I would use a blade- katanas in particular. They are the most beautiful of swords and generally the best crafted.


----------



## Duality Jack (Nov 5, 2009)

A Challenger approaches


----------



## Mikael Grizzly (Nov 5, 2009)

LizardKing said:


> Jesus christ, it's really not that difficult to understand.
> 
> Let's make this simple for you.
> 
> ...



The basic operation of a firearm is far more simple than that of any melee weapon. Point and shoot until the other person stops moving. 

There's really no contest. Sure, you might wave that sword of yours around, but to actually hit someone with half a brain and a little better than average agility... let's say it's not as easy as it looks.


----------



## Irreverent (Nov 5, 2009)

Mikael Grizzly said:


> The basic operation of a firearm is far more simple than that of any melee weapon. Point and shoot until the other person stops moving.



That's what "Hollyweird", COD and L4D would have you believe.  In reality, its not quite that simple or easy.   When we teach the CSSA safety course at the gun club, the standard for pistol accuracy (centre fire pistol) is 10 shots on a metre-square target at 7m.  Virtually "point bank"  (although point-blanc is something completely different) in media speak.  

Half of the rookies can't even hit that the first time out.  Double that to 14m and you half the number of hits on targets again.  And that's on a "one way range", under controlled environmental conditions, safety off and a 4 hour familiarization course before hand.

Its better for rifle with iron sites (longer site plane), worse for rifle with scopes or diopter sites.


----------



## ToeClaws (Nov 5, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> Never!  There is nothing dishonourable about winning the fight and staying alive.  Rule number one, bring a gun.  Rule number two, bring a gun of sufficient calibre.  Rule number three, bring all your buddies with guns.



It is more dishonourable to shoot a man at distance than to kill him face to face.  But you're right - in a war, there is often little honour in fighting, and the battle tends to go to those with the better weapons.


----------



## Gonebatty (Nov 5, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> That's what "Hollyweird", COD and L4D would have you believe.  In reality, its not quite that simple or easy.   When we teach the CSSA safety course at the gun club, the standard for pistol accuracy (centre fire pistol) is 10 shots on a metre-square target at 7m.  Virtually "point bank"  (although point-blanc is something completely different) in media speak.
> 
> Half of the rookies can't even hit that the first time out.  Double that to 14m and you half the number of hits on targets again.  And that's on a "one way range", under controlled environmental conditions, safety off and a 4 hour familiarization course before hand.
> 
> Its better for rifle with iron sites (longer site plane), worse for rifle with scopes or diopter sites.



Many russian weapons are so simple yet effective, theres been documented cases of 8 year olds going into combat almost as effective as an insurgent or merc.

A soldier can train with these and be ready in a very short time.

Also, a sniper rifle in the hands of a fully trained and gifted marksman can go a mile.
A sword... not so much.

All of this from mil channel, books, and records.


----------



## Runefox (Nov 5, 2009)

The Drunken Ace said:


> A Challenger approaches



That's a gun with a built-in bayonet.  Call it a gunblade and I will destroy you - It's called a pistol sword.


----------



## Mikael Grizzly (Nov 5, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> That's what "Hollyweird", COD and L4D would have you believe.  In reality, its not quite that simple or easy.   When we teach the CSSA safety course at the gun club, the standard for pistol accuracy (centre fire pistol) is 10 shots on a metre-square target at 7m.  Virtually "point bank"  (although point-blanc is something completely different) in media speak.
> 
> Half of the rookies can't even hit that the first time out.  Double that to 14m and you half the number of hits on targets again.  And that's on a "one way range", under controlled environmental conditions, safety off and a 4 hour familiarization course before hand.
> 
> Its better for rifle with iron sites (longer site plane), worse for rifle with scopes or diopter sites.



It's still a better result than a rookie with a sword. 

I'm not saying that a rookie with a pistol is going to be an expert, I'm just saying that a rookie with a pistol is going to be more dangerous than a rookie with a sword.


----------



## Mikael Grizzly (Nov 5, 2009)

I saw an actual gunblade once.

Not a gun with a bayonet, but an actual gunblade. Like the ones in FF8, except not ridiculous. Well, not as much.


----------



## Irreverent (Nov 5, 2009)

ToeClaws said:


> But you're right - in a war, there is often little honour in fighting, and the battle tends to go to those with the better weapons.



Agreed.  There is no honour in war, or in any combat.  The only goal is to survive..



Gonebatty said:


> Many russian weapons are so simple yet effective, theres been documented cases of 8 year olds going into combat almost as effective as an insurgent or merc.



No doubt there is plenty of anecdotal evidence about ease of use of rifles, pistols and shotguns.  My example was only to point out that its not as easy as everyone thinks.  Hollywood, computer games and the media have created a mythical perception that you can use firearms with your eyes closed, and that's not grounded in reality.



> All of this from mil channel, books, and records.



All of this from practical experience, teaching the Canadian Shooting Sports Association Club Level Safety Course.  And the Ontario Rifle Associations' "Introduction to Precision Shooting" at my range.  



Mikael Grizzly said:


> I'm not saying that a rookie with a pistol is going to be an expert, I'm just saying that a rookie with a pistol is going to be more dangerous than a rookie with a sword.



Rookies with anything are dangerous.  Its the professionals that are predictable.


----------



## Runefox (Nov 5, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> No doubt there is plenty of anecdotal evidence about ease of use of rifles, pistols and shotguns.  My example was only to point out that its not as easy as everyone thinks.  Hollywood, computer games and the media have created a mythical perception that you can use firearms with your eyes closed, and that's not grounded in reality.


I realize this isn't directed at me, but yeah, this is true. Though it's also true that with only rudimentary training, one can become rather dangerous with those weapons versus the training required to actually be effective in combat against others with swords. That's my argument.


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Nov 5, 2009)

You know what I want?

A gun that _shoots _swords.


----------



## Runefox (Nov 5, 2009)

Rigor Sardonicus said:


> You know what I want?
> 
> A gun that _shoots _swords.



Bullets are more aerodynamic - Swords would tumble through the air and just fall short. </buzz killington>


----------



## Ratte (Nov 5, 2009)

or

a gun that shoots needles

that would be p cool

...

I see you maks


----------



## Gonebatty (Nov 5, 2009)

Rigor Sardonicus said:


> You know what I want?
> 
> A gun that _shoots _swords.



XD That would be... awesome.

Theres a game with a gun that shoots stakes- five at once. I want to see that.

Edit: @ ratte: Umm. tf2 has a syringe gun. That'd be awesome too.


----------



## Ratte (Nov 5, 2009)

Gonebatty said:


> Theres a game with a gun that shoots steaks- five at once. I want to see that.



That must be

like

the manliest game evar


----------



## Gonebatty (Nov 5, 2009)

Ratte said:


> That must be
> 
> like
> 
> the manliest game evar



:/ METAL STAKES. Like you kill vampires with. the other would be nice too, though!


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Nov 5, 2009)

Runefox said:


> Bullets are more aerodynamic - Swords would tumble through the air and just fall short. </buzz killington>


Not if they're balanced and stabilized properly. And you can't impale people and nail them to walls with _bullets._



Ratte said:


> or
> 
> a gun that shoots needles


Pff, I could build one of those easily. Just give me some PVC pipes, a couple pulleys, and a handful of magnets.



Gonebatty said:


> XD That would be... awesome.
> 
> Theres a game with a gun that shoots steaks- five at once. I want to see that.


Steaks?
If you mean "stakes", I'm inclined to ask if it's called "Painkiller", but if you actually mean slabs of meat...


----------



## Gonebatty (Nov 5, 2009)

Rigor Sardonicus said:


> Not if they're balanced and stabilized properly. And you can't impale people and nail them to walls with _bullets._
> 
> 
> Pff, I could build one of those easily. Just give me some PVC pipes, a couple pulleys, and a handful of magnets.
> ...



Yeah. Havent played it, but they showed it as the top 5 vg weapons on demand.

Edit: oh, shit. noticed my spelling just now. soooo sorry.


----------



## Irreverent (Nov 5, 2009)

Ratte said:


> or
> 
> a gun that shoots needles
> 
> ...



You can find 12 gauge flechette rounds at gun shows.


----------



## Runefox (Nov 5, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> You can find 12 gauge flechette rounds at gun shows.



Hey, I actually had an air rifle that could shoot darts and bolts, too. =D

... ._. That doesn't make me cool.


----------



## Duality Jack (Nov 5, 2009)

Rocket propelled chainsaw.


----------



## Gonebatty (Nov 5, 2009)

The Drunken Ace said:


> Rocket propelled chainsaw.



Win. Or a mg that fires chainsaws... on fire.


----------



## Duality Jack (Nov 5, 2009)

Sketch of said device


----------



## Gonebatty (Nov 5, 2009)

The Drunken Ace said:


> Sketch of said device



Oh, god. XD Pure awesome. Whats it from? Looks like concept art.


----------



## Duality Jack (Nov 5, 2009)

Gonebatty said:


> Oh, god. XD Pure awesome. Whats it from? Looks like concept art.


Sadly only Gmod has it as far as I know.
*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TI_Kzr-Ey-o
Terribly unimpressive video I know but the new version tracks :V
*


----------



## Mikael Grizzly (Nov 5, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> Rookies with anything are dangerous.  Its the professionals that are predictable.



Point taken.


----------



## Wreth (Nov 5, 2009)

What does flechette actually mean? D:


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Nov 5, 2009)

Zoopedia said:


> What does flechette actually mean? D:


According to Wikipedia, the term comes from the French word for "dart", and refers to a "pointed steel projectile with a vaned tail for stable flight."

Apparently, exploding and/or shredding targets isn't part of the definition, so it's debatable whether the Hunters in HL2:E2 actually use flechettes...


----------



## Wreth (Nov 5, 2009)

Rigor Sardonicus said:


> According to Wikipedia, the term comes from the French word for "dart", and refers to a "pointed steel projectile with a vaned tail for stable flight."
> 
> Apparently, exploding and/or shredding targets isn't part of the definition, so it's debatable whether the Hunters in HL2:E2 actually use flechettes...



That's not the only game I've played that has ammunition that detonates a few seconds after hitting a target and is nammed flechette.


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Nov 5, 2009)

Zoopedia said:


> That's not the only game I've played that has ammunition that detonates a few seconds after hitting a target and is nammed flechette.


Well, aren't you special :V


----------



## Liam (Nov 5, 2009)

If you shouldn't bring a knife to a gunfight, why bother bringing a sword?

Any gun worth it's weight will outdo any sword anytime.
A sword will beat a squirt gun.


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Nov 5, 2009)

gulielmus said:


> If you shouldn't bring a knife to a gunfight, why bother bringing a sword?
> 
> Any gun worth it's weight will outdo any sword anytime.
> A sword will beat a squirt gun.


Pff, I could chop you up before you finished loading a 19th-century cannon :V


----------



## SvettlanaLioness (Nov 5, 2009)

I prefer a gun, as I own a Desert Eagle AE .50 cal pistol.


----------



## Jashwa (Nov 5, 2009)

SvettlanaLioness said:


> I prefer a gun, as I own a Desert Eagle AE .50 cal pistol.


I'm sure you do.


----------



## Mr Ringtail (Nov 5, 2009)

SvettlanaLioness said:


> I prefer a gun, as I own a 12 inch metal dick with no practical use.



Fix'd

This is the only weapon you need:

http://world.guns.ru/handguns/beretta92fs.jpg


----------



## Irreverent (Nov 5, 2009)

SvettlanaLioness said:


> I prefer a gun, as I own a Desert Eagle AE .50 cal pistol.



Despite their sex appeal, I find the .50AE to be bulky, unwieldy and just damn unpleasant to shoot. And at a buck a shot, its not a plinker.  Same goes for the X-framed S&W's we see at the club.

The .357 Desert Eagle is about as big as I can shoot comfortably.  The Wildy in .44 automag is WAY more controllable.  Sort of a poor mans Auto Mag Inc. .44.


----------



## SvettlanaLioness (Nov 5, 2009)

well mine has a ported compensator on it as so it dont kick like a mule! plus I shoot military rounds, as I'm in the US military.


----------



## Runefox (Nov 5, 2009)

I think if I were to shoot a pistol and had a choice in the matter, I'd probably start off with an M1911 (though I'd really like to try out a USP as far as .45's go) or a 92FS/M9 if possible. Either that or a PPK or a Makarov PM. Frankly, if I were given the choice, I'd probably only fire a Desert Eagle once or twice, just to see what it's like. It seems too big and heavy to really want to fire very often - Kinda like the idea of firing a SPAS-12 with the stock folded up.

Too bad I can't afford to own any of them nor a license for them, though.



> well mine has a ported compensator on it as so it dont kick like a mule! plus I shoot military rounds, as I'm in the US military.



I wasn't aware that the US military stocked .50AE ammunition - The Desert Eagle in any form isn't standard issue for anyone in the US military.


----------



## Jashwa (Nov 5, 2009)

SvettlanaLioness said:


> well mine has a ported compensator on it as so it dont kick like a mule! plus I shoot military rounds, as I'm in the US military.


I'm sure you are.


----------



## Mr Ringtail (Nov 5, 2009)

"US military" is a dead giveaway. A real soldier would've at least specified which branch.

Can we trust anything this person says?


----------



## SvettlanaLioness (Nov 5, 2009)

well, excuse me, I'm from the US Air Force. I did know you had to specify everything*lol* what do you want next, a salute?*lol*


----------



## Mr Ringtail (Nov 5, 2009)

EDIT: Damn, that's the fastest I've seen someone get banhammered.


----------



## SaberLeopardess816 (Nov 5, 2009)

well that doesnt stop my mom from monitoring me on my PC!
She is very inquisitive!


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Nov 6, 2009)

SaberLeopardess816 said:


> well that doesnt stop my mom from monitoring me on my PC!
> She is very inquisitive!


Wow, massive non-sequitur.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Nov 6, 2009)

ToeClaws said:


> It is more dishonourable to shoot a man at distance than to kill him face to face.  But you're right - in a war, there is often little honour in fighting, and *the battle tends to go to those with the better weapons*.



Actually, the battle tends to go to those with the better tactics.


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 6, 2009)

Mr Ringtail said:


> Fix'd
> 
> This is the only weapon you need:
> 
> http://world.guns.ru/handguns/beretta92fs.jpg



M9 is so shit. I wouldn't use that for anything.


----------



## south syde dobe (Nov 6, 2009)

meh I'd go with chemical warefare, it destroys the enemy even while your not there >:3


----------



## Duality Jack (Nov 6, 2009)

What about these?


----------



## Roose Hurro (Nov 6, 2009)

The Drunken Ace said:


> What about these?



Not my style... I'm more cowboy than "Robin Hood".


----------



## Irreverent (Nov 6, 2009)

Runefox said:


> I think if I were to shoot a pistol and had a choice in the matter, I'd probably start off with an M1911 (though I'd really like to try out a USP as far as .45's go) or a 92FS/M9 if possible. Either that or a PPK or a Makarov PM. Frankly, if I were given the choice, I'd probably only fire a Desert Eagle once or twice, just to see what it's like. It seems too big and heavy to really want to fire very often - Kinda like the idea of firing a SPAS-12 with the stock folded up.



The Colt 1911 is THE definitive handgun of the 20th century. All of the modern locked-breech/tilt barrel guns including those based on the fixed link design owe their heritage to this gun.  I've a few, and they are a joy to shoot too.

The 92FS is fun to shoot, but its just Beretta's take on a Walther P-38, its high-capacity mag was its only innovation on Walther's classic design.

HK's USP are very, very nice, but I can have two 1911's for the price of one USP.   The P7 squeeze cocker is a cool varient, and the shortest barreled handgun that can be owned in Canada, without a 12.6 license.



> Too bad I can't afford to own any of them nor a license for them, though.



Couple dozen commissions and you could be plinking in Gander before you know it. 



> I wasn't aware that the US military stocked .50AE ammunition - The Desert Eagle in any form isn't standard issue for anyone in the US military.



We saw her trolling.  We hating.


----------



## ChocolateBear (Nov 6, 2009)

Good news, everyone! I've just solved this problem, I've devised a new experimental device which is a gun that fires swords blade first when set to kill and pommel first when set to stun!

No man can stand against my swordcannon!


----------



## Runefox (Nov 6, 2009)

Oh yeah, just so people know, here's a size comparison of Mr. Deagle.

Frickin' huge.


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Nov 6, 2009)

The Drunken Ace said:


> What about these?


FUCK YEAH, BOWCASTER
Oh, wait. It's just a crossbow.
Eh. "Fuck yeah" anyway.


----------



## Mayfurr (Nov 6, 2009)

ToeClaws said:


> It is more dishonourable to shoot a man at distance than to kill him face to face.  But you're right - in a war, there is often little honour in fighting, and *the battle tends to go to those with the better weapons.*



Not necessarily.

* WW2. The German Tiger tank was technically superior to the US Sherman tank (and in some respects the Russian T-34), yet the Tiger forces were decimated simply because of the sheer numbers of Shermans and T-34s deployed. While the Allies lost four Shermans for every Tiger destroyed, the Allies could _build_ at least five Shermans for every Tiger the Germans built...

* WW2. German wonder-weapons such as the V1 and V2, the Me262 jet fighter and Me163 rocket fighter, and other exotic German aircraft were technically superior to what the Allies had - yet in the end, they didn't make much difference. (Primarily because of "too little, too late".)

* Vietnam. US forces with the latest high-tech weaponry were beaten by Vietnamese using what were technically inferior weaponry in guerilla warfare tactics.

* Afghanistan. Ditto with Russian forces vs. Afghans. One could almost say the same with US forces there now with the Taliban.

I recommend reading the Arthur C. Clarke short story "Superiority" for an illustration of how superior weaponry can be a _disadvantage_ compared to sheer *quantity*...


----------



## Duality Jack (Nov 6, 2009)

Rigor Sardonicus said:


> FUCK YEAH, BOWCASTER
> Oh, wait. It's just a crossbow.
> Eh. "Fuck yeah" anyway.


Is this more your style?


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Nov 6, 2009)

The Drunken Ace said:


> Is this more your style?


As much as I loved the HL2 crossbow, that's not a bowcaster either.

This is, though.


----------



## Irreverent (Nov 6, 2009)

Runefox said:


> Oh yeah, just so people know, here's a size comparison of Mr. Deagle.
> 
> Frickin' huge.



And that's just the .357.  The .44 and .50AE are even bigger.   In increasing order of muzzle energy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:9mm_7,62mm_357sig_10mm_45SW_45GAP_50AE_002.jpg





Mayfurr said:


> I recommend reading the Arthur C. Clarke short story "Superiority" for an illustration of how superior weaponry can be a _disadvantage_ compared to sheer *quantity*...



You raise some excellent examples, but i think Carke's rational was that the fact the Sherman tank could be built 5 times faster made it the "better' weapon; even though the Tiger's 88mm round could carve through it like butter.  They called the Sherman "The Ronson", because it would "lite up" when hit every time.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Nov 6, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> You raise some excellent examples, but i think Carke's rational was that the fact the Sherman tank could be built 5 times faster made it the "better' weapon; even though the Tiger's 88mm round could carve through it like butter.  They called the Sherman "The Ronson", because it would "lite up" when hit every time.



Shoot, wish I could remember, but years and years ago, I read about an aircraft that had the same reputation, due to the fact in use magnesium in its structure... same stuff they use in flares, meaning, once the plane started burning, there was no way to stop it.  I think they refered to them as "Flying Coffins"...


----------



## Runefox (Nov 7, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> Shoot, wish I could remember, but years and years ago, I read about an aircraft that had the same reputation, due to the fact in use magnesium in its structure... same stuff they use in flares, meaning, once the plane started burning, there was no way to stop it.  I think they refered to them as "Flying Coffins"...



I'm not sure which one you're thinking of specifically, but the Japanese A6M Zero was also, if I remember right, at one point called a Flying Coffin by its crews because of its inability to take damage. Its construction was structurally weak, and had no armour nor self-sealing fuel tanks. Once a tank was ruptured and caught fire, the plane was gone - Either exploded instantly or burnt-out, taking plane and pilot with it. It was a purely offensive aircraft, symbolic of Japan's ideals of the day - To take a hit was death, so strike swiftly and outwit your opponent. It was one of the best fighters of its day in terms of combat performance in that regard.

Contrasted to the F4F Wildcat and F6F Hellcat they went up against, which were heavily armoured and ruggedized with self-sealing fuel tanks that didn't ignite when punctured, the Zeroes were like paper mache, unable to take what would even be glancing blows to a Wildcat or Hellcat.


----------



## Mayfurr (Nov 7, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> You raise some excellent examples, but i think Carke's rational was that the fact the Sherman tank could be built 5 times faster made it the "better' weapon; even though the Tiger's 88mm round could carve through it like butter.  They called the Sherman "The Ronson", because it would "lite up" when hit every time.



"Lights first time, every time!"

And the Germans called them "Tommy Cookers" for the same reason.



Roose Hurro said:


> Shoot, wish I could remember, but years and years ago, I read about an aircraft that had the same reputation, due to the fact in use magnesium in its structure... same stuff they use in flares, meaning, once the plane started burning, there was no way to stop it.  I think they refered to them as "Flying Coffins"...



I've read that a number of aircraft have attracted "Widowmaker"-style nicknames. Some of the best ones I've seen are:

F-104 Starfighter - in Luftwaffe service, _Erdnagel _("ground nail" a.k.a. tent peg)

B-26 Marauder - "Martin Murderer", "Flying Coffin", "B-Dash-Crash", and "Flying Prostitute" (so-named because it had "no visible means of support," referring to its small wings)

F-4 Phantom II - in Luftwaffe service, _Eisenschwein _("Iron Pig"), _Fliegender Ziegelstein_ ("Flying Brick") and _Luftverteidigungsdiesel _("Air Defense Diesel")

Gotta love gallows humour!

(thanks to Wikipedia  )


----------



## Runefox (Nov 7, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> And the Germans called them "Tommy Cookers" for the same reason.


Yeah, they ran on diesel/gasoline (depending on the model) and carried the ammunition in a vulnerable position above the tracks, which made the whole thing highly explosive.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Nov 7, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> I've read that a number of aircraft have attracted "Widowmaker"-style nicknames. Some of the best ones I've seen are:
> 
> F-104 Starfighter - in Luftwaffe service, _Erdnagel _("ground nail" a.k.a. tent peg)
> 
> ...



Yep, certainly adds to the charm of military service/history, aircraftwise....

But my memory is trying to remember a specific aircraft... been so long, that bit of data is no longer in the hard-drive, so to speak.  Sure wish I could remember.  Thought it might be the de Havilland Mosqito, but that aircraft is notable for being made of plywood (like a Beech Staggerwing).  And I do remember the aircraft I'm trying to remember got its rep from the extensive use of magnesium in its airframe, and its tendency to light up like a flare when hit.  Well, chaulk it up to old age, I guess.........   >.<   Can't remember everything...   _*sigh*_


----------



## Runefox (Nov 7, 2009)

Dammit, now you've got *me* trying to figure out which aircraft you're talking about. Cursory searches turn up blank, and so does my memory.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Nov 7, 2009)

Runefox said:


> Dammit, now you've got *me* trying to figure out which aircraft you're talking about. *Cursory searches turn up blank*, and so does my memory.



Tried that, too, and came up the same... just can't find the right keywords.


----------



## greg-the-fox (Nov 7, 2009)

Is that even a question? Guns. I quote that scene from Indiana Jones as my argument. You know the one


----------



## EnigmaOfSin (Nov 7, 2009)

Depending on the situation and amount of ammo.

I would probably choose swords.


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Nov 7, 2009)

Scissors <3


----------



## Mayfurr (Nov 7, 2009)

Rigor Sardonicus said:


> Scissors <3



Hey, you're right. We're all told "Don't run with scissors", but *no-one *tells us not to run with guns or swords...


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Nov 7, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> Hey, you're right. We're all told "Don't run with scissors", but *no-one *tells us not to run with guns or swords...


Huh? I meant as a weapon...


----------



## Duality Jack (Nov 7, 2009)

Rigor Sardonicus said:


> Huh? I meant as a weapon...


 He is implying that they are more dangerous in general :V


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Nov 7, 2009)

The Drunken Ace said:


> He is implying that they are more dangerous in general :V


GODDOMMOT MOFORR


----------



## Roose Hurro (Nov 7, 2009)

At least with a gun, you're not as likely to cut yourself...


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Nov 7, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> At least with a gun, you're not as likely to cut yourself...


$(ObligatoryEmoJoke) :V


----------



## Irreverent (Nov 7, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> Tried that, too, and came up the same... just can't find the right keywords.



It was the other 4-engine RAF bomber, the Shorts Stirling. Precursor to the Lancaster and the Wellington, the Stirling was an advanced design that was built before the material science of the day had caught up with the design.  As a result, many corners were cut....and thousands were lost.


----------



## Mayfurr (Nov 7, 2009)

The Drunken Ace said:


> He is implying that they are more dangerous in general :V



You know that anyone crazy enough to attack you with scissors has GOT to be bad news. 
Besides, "Edward Scissorhands" just wouldn't have had the same creepiness factor if it was "Edward Gunhands" or "Edward Swordhands"...


----------



## Duality Jack (Nov 7, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> You know that anyone crazy enough to attack you with scissors has GOT to be bad news.
> Besides, "Edward Scissorhands" just wouldn't have had the same creepiness factor if it was "Edward Gunhands" or "Edward Swordhands"...


thats true . Very true.   "Edward Gunhands" would just be bad ass not scary at all.


----------



## Mayfurr (Nov 7, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> It was the other 4-engine RAF bomber, the Shorts Stirling. Precursor to the Lancaster and the Wellington, the Stirling was an advanced design that was built before the material science of the day had caught up with the design.  As a result, many corners were cut....and thousands were lost.



Hmmm... taking a look at the Wikipedia article, I can't see anything that would have the Shorts Stirling as a "widowmaker" design. ON the one hand, while it did have a low service ceiling (making it have to fly _through_ the Alps instead of over them) and a disappointing payload at maximum range, it appears that it did have the performance to out-turn German nightfighters.

Roose, you weren't thinking of the B-24 Liberator by any chance? 



> The B-24 was notorious among American air crews for its tendency to catch fire. The placement of the B-24's fuel tanks throughout the upper fuselage and its lightweight construction, designed to increase range and optimize assembly line production, made the aircraft vulnerable to battle damage. The B-24 was more difficult to fly as well, with heavy control forces and poor formation flying characteristics. The B-24 nevertheless provided excellent service in a variety of roles thanks to its large payload and long range.


----------



## Kommodore (Nov 7, 2009)

Guns look cooler and work better. 

What other possible criteria could you possibly need?


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Nov 7, 2009)

CommodoreKitty said:


> Guns look cooler and work better.
> 
> What other possible criteria could you possibly need?


"Work better", my ass. Have you ever tried chopping somebody to pieces with a gun? :V


----------



## Kommodore (Nov 7, 2009)

Clearly you do not value efficiency :\


----------



## Kahrio (Nov 7, 2009)

imma sucker for swords, no lie, there damn awesome.

but in all honesty id take a gun any day, seems a little more effective.

Me + Pump-Action Shotgun + Zombies = Damn Good Time!


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Nov 7, 2009)

CommodoreKitty said:


> Clearly you do not value efficiency :\


Clearly you are too much of a whimp to enjoy slaughter :V


----------



## Mayfurr (Nov 8, 2009)

Rigor Sardonicus said:


> "Work better", my ass. Have you ever tried chopping somebody to pieces with a gun? :V



With a sufficiently high firing rate and quantities of ammunition, I believe the appropriate description of what a gun could do is "shredded" or "mincemeat"


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Nov 8, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> With a sufficiently high firing rate and quantities of ammunition, I believe the appropriate description of what a gun could do is "shredded" or "mincemeat"


Minced =/= chopped >_>


----------



## Runefox (Nov 8, 2009)

Kahrio said:


> Me + Pump-Action Shotgun + Zombies = Damn Good Time!



You know, contrary to popular belief, pump-action shotguns are not the preferred zombie-killing tool - At least, not according to the Zombie Survival Guide, which gives them a lukewarm appeal at best - No, sir, you want an M1 Garand or an M1 Carbine. Accurate, high stopping power, almost-guaranteed clean kill with a headshot, and easy to maintain and operate (and the ammunition is everywhere). It's light and mobile enough to be used almost anywhere. Even better might be an M1A1 if you can find one - Not as nice to fire with the wire stock, but lighter and more mobile, which is (at least in my opinion) better in the case of a zombie outbreak.


----------



## blackfuredfox (Nov 8, 2009)

Runefox said:


> You know, contrary to popular belief, pump-action shotguns are not the preferred zombie-killing tool - At least, not according to the Zombie Survival Guide, which gives them a lukewarm appeal at best - No, sir, you want an M1 Garand or an M1 Carbine. Accurate, high stopping power, almost-guaranteed clean kill with a headshot, and easy to maintain and operate (and the ammunition is everywhere). It's light and mobile enough to be used almost anywhere. Even better might be an M1A1 if you can find one - Not as nice to fire with the wire stock, but lighter and more mobile, which is (at least in my opinion) better in the case of a zombie outbreak.



not exactly, the ammo is 30.06 for those, the more common type would be 7.62 or 5.56 so more along the lines of an AK-47 or an AR-15. if avalible both.


----------



## Runefox (Nov 8, 2009)

blackfuredfox said:


> not exactly, the ammo is 30.06 for those, the more common type would be 7.62 or 5.56 so more along the lines of an AK-47 or an AR-15. if avalible both.



Actually, there is a 7.62x51mm NATO variant of the M1 Garand (Mk2 Mod 2), and the M1 Carbine fires the .30 Carbine (which is a 7.62x33mm cartridge), which I'm sure is actually rather difficult to find in hindsight. I wonder how difficult it would be to rechamber it for the 7.62x51mm NATO cartridge.

Also, the 7.62mm NATO round is incompatible with the AK-47 (7.62x39mm), though there are variants of the AK-100 series (AK-101/102) that can take the standard 5.56mm cartridge.


----------



## blackfuredfox (Nov 8, 2009)

Runefox said:


> Actually, there is a 7.62x51mm NATO variant of the M1 Garand (Mk2 Mod 2), and the M1 Carbine fires the .30 Carbine (which is a 7.62x33mm cartridge), which I'm sure is actually rather difficult to find in hindsight. I wonder how difficult it would be to rechamber it for the 7.62x51mm NATO cartridge.



hell, if you are going for the 7.62x51mm then screw the M-1, get a M-14. has a comfy wooden stock, it is semi and full auto, has a magazine.


----------



## Runefox (Nov 8, 2009)

blackfuredfox said:


> hell, if you are going for the 7.62x51mm then screw the M-1, get a M-14. has a comfy wooden stock, it is semi and full auto, has a magazine.



Problem with full auto is that that's a terrible idea for a zombie outbreak - Huge waste of ammunition (hell, full auto on the M14 was a waste of ammunition _anyway_). I suppose a civilian variant of the M14EBR would suffice - That's limited to semi-automatic fire.


----------



## blackfuredfox (Nov 8, 2009)

Runefox said:


> Problem with full auto is that that's a terrible idea for a zombie outbreak - Huge waste of ammunition (hell, full auto on the M14 was a waste of ammunition _anyway_). I suppose a civilian variant of the M14EBR would suffice - That's limited to semi-automatic fire.



that and the M-14 wound be a hell of a lot more abundant in that situation even if its outdated, it will be easier to find than a M-1 Garand. that and you can recycle the clips, with that little strip you get on the Garand, it hits asphalt, no way you will be looking for it when you got zombies coming for ya.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Nov 8, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> Hmmm... taking a look at the Wikipedia article, I can't see anything that would have the Shorts Stirling as a "widowmaker" design. ON the one hand, while it did have a low service ceiling (making it have to fly _through_ the Alps instead of over them) and a disappointing payload at maximum range, it appears that it did have the performance to out-turn German nightfighters.
> 
> *Roose, you weren't thinking of the B-24 Liberator by any chance?*



I don't really know... it's probably been 30-35 years or better, when I was going through my aviation period, reading everything I could on aircraft, rockets and such.  All I can clearly remember is the widow-maker rep of this aircraft had to do with the burning of its magnesium airframe.  Could be, though...


----------



## Irreverent (Nov 8, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> Hmmm... taking a look at the Wikipedia article, I can't see anything that would have the Shorts Stirling as a "widowmaker" design.



I hadn't actually read that article.  Google "heavy bombers of the RAF" and stirling for some better info.  I didn't save the link.



Runefox said:


> Actually, there is a 7.62x51mm NATO variant of the M1 Garand (Mk2 Mod 2), and the M1 Carbine fires the .30 Carbine (which is a 7.62x33mm cartridge), which I'm sure is actually rather difficult to find in hindsight. I wonder how difficult it would be to rechamber it for the 7.62x51mm NATO cartridge.



The M1 Carbine can't be re-chambered for .308.  The .30 carbine straight-walled round is about as powerful as .38 Special...its really closer to pistol round performance than rifle round performance.  Ruger even chambers models of the Super Blackhawk revolver in .30 carbine.


----------



## Tycho (Nov 8, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> I don't really know... it's probably been 30-35 years or better, when I was going through my aviation period, reading everything I could on aircraft, rockets and such.  All I can clearly remember is the widow-maker rep of this aircraft had to do with the burning of its magnesium airframe.  Could be, though...



The B-26 had a rep as a "widowmaker", but IIRC that was due to its short wingspan which made the plane a tricky bitch to fly.


----------



## Mikael Grizzly (Nov 8, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> The M1 Carbine can't be re-chambered for .308.  The .30 carbine straight-walled round is about as powerful as .38 Special...its really closer to pistol round performance than rifle round performance.  Ruger even chambers models of the Super Blackhawk revolver in .30 carbine.



Wasn't the purpose of the carbine to be something with a bit more power than a standard pistol, to be carried alongside a main weapon?


----------



## Roose Hurro (Nov 8, 2009)

Mikael Grizzly said:


> Wasn't the purpose of the carbine to be something with a bit more power than a standard pistol, to be carried alongside a main weapon?



Yes, which is why it used a pistol-class cartridge in a light carbine... and in actuallity, its purpose was to be a main weapon, for those unable to handle the M1 Garand.  Far as I can remember.........


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 8, 2009)

Well I know about a few knives with a hidden surprise tucked inside, russian's mostly made them but there's a few US ones and Nazi Germany had a belt buckle that was a gun as well.

(Russian KGB OTs-54)
(OSS, US Knife that had the ability to fire a single round)
(Modern knife with the same ability)
(Russian Spetznas Knife, the NRS-2)


----------



## Runefox (Nov 9, 2009)

Mikael Grizzly said:


> Wasn't the purpose of the carbine to be something with a bit more power than a standard pistol, to be carried alongside a main weapon?



Well, the pistol-calibre cartridge would have had a lot more range and accuracy fired from the longer barrel of the M1 Carbine; If nothing else, the impulse of the round would be greater due to a longer exposure to the explosive pressure of the charge. Its main advantage was its light weight, and paratroopers found it to be quite effective as a rifle they could carry with them on the descent. I imagine it was popular with scouts, and Wiki goes on to list officers, forward observers and ammunition-bearers - All situations where the accuracy and range of a rifle would be much more useful than that of a pistol, but where a lighter weapon than a rifle would be preferred.

It wasn't ever meant to be issued to fighting infantry as a main or secondary weapon - It was meant to be issued to officers and soldiers who needed mobility over firepower, who weren't expecting to be doing the heavy lifting of the fighting force as far as engaging with the enemy was concerned.


----------



## LotsOfNothing (Nov 9, 2009)

i liek sords bcuz i pretedn 2 b a samurai  ^_^


----------



## themnax (Nov 9, 2009)

given the choice, i'd take nonleathal but just as effective energy beam weapons.

i really get nothing out of someone being killed or mamed, no matter how much of a jerk they might otherwise deserve it by being.


----------



## Irreverent (Nov 9, 2009)

Runefox said:


> It wasn't ever meant to be issued to fighting infantry as a main or secondary weapon - It was meant to be issued to officers and soldiers who needed mobility over firepower, who weren't expecting to be doing the heavy lifting of the fighting force as far as engaging with the enemy was concerned.



Yes, typically officers, NCO's, 2nd's on crew served weapons and radio operators.  Paradoxically, all the people that would have been issued either a rapier (officers) or a short sword (nco's, radio operators, scouts) prior to WW II.  Thus the guns vs. swords thread has come full circle.

In reality, most American NCO's and officers would dump the carbine and requisition a M1928MA1 (Tommy Gun) because it ran the same ammo as their issued 1911A1,  simplifying their combat load out.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Nov 9, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> Yes, typically officers, NCO's, 2nd's on crew served weapons and radio operators.  Paradoxically, all the people that would have been issued either a rapier (officers) or a short sword (nco's, radio operators, scouts) prior to WW II.  Thus the guns vs. swords thread has come full circle.
> 
> In reality, most American NCO's and officers would dump the carbine and requisition a M1928MA1 (Tommy Gun) because it ran the same ammo as their issued 1911A1,  simplifying their combat load out.



Which is fuckin' huge (.45 ACP) for a submachinegun.


----------



## Xx WoLF (Nov 9, 2009)

I like both, but a gun you be the best choice...


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Nov 10, 2009)

So, no love for the bowcaster?


----------



## Irreverent (Nov 10, 2009)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> Which is fuckin' huge (.45 ACP) for a submachinegun.



Not really.  .45ACP is quite controllable in full auto. And it wasn't just the Thompson, MP3's, Sten's and one more (who's name escapes me) were all chambered in .45ACP.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Nov 10, 2009)

Yeah, I suppose. The Thompson was also pretty heavy, so it would be more stable.


----------



## Eerie Silverfox (Nov 10, 2009)

I love all weapons but I love edged ones a little more. <3


----------



## Runefox (Nov 10, 2009)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> Which is fuckin' huge (.45 ACP) for a submachinegun.



Take a good, long look at the Kriss Super-V.


----------



## Tycho (Nov 10, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> Not really.  .45ACP is quite controllable in full auto. And it wasn't just the Thompson, MP3's, Sten's and one more (who's name escapes me) were all chambered in .45ACP.



MP3?

You mean the M3 Greasegun?


----------



## Irreverent (Nov 10, 2009)

Runefox said:


> Take a good, long look at the Kriss Super-V.



Hmm...a luger varient in .45acp, with full auto capability.



Tycho said:


> MP3?
> 
> You mean the M3 Greasegun?



Yes, I did.


----------

