log in or register to remove this ad

 

Guns in D&D - A Hot Take

Sure, officers were issued pistols, but, rank and file weren't often. They were using rifles and other long guns. And always did. I'm really not sure why you would think that pistols were more commonly used. Than shotguns? Sure. They didn't issue shotguns. But, if you were pulling out your pistol in a fight, the poop had already massively hit the windmill.

I'm going to stand by my statement that in the wild west, you'd see far, far more shotguns being used than pistols. But, pistols, like the sword before it, has the air of romance about it that makes it seem so common.
I think that you two may be talking at cross purposes. You're talking military, whereas I think Sacrosanct is talking civilian Wild West.
Pistols aren't generally a military weapon. They were issued to officers for self-defence purposes - echoes of the days when a soldiers weapon was designed to threaten the enemy but an officer's weapon was designed to threaten their soldiers. :)

However pistols are much more a civilian weapon than shotguns. Rifles may have actually seen more actual use, but for hunting, whereas pistols were carried to use against other people. And few sources record data on how many rabbits were shot compared to gunshot wounds on people treated by doctors. Or morticians.

Certainly in America, guns in general and pistols in particular do seem to have a definite air of romance around them.

You can keep thinking that, but you’re wrong. Our targets on the pistol range for qualification in the military were 25 meters away, and you had to have your shot group in a tight center mass grouping circle to qualify. So I have no idea where you’re getting your 20m figure from. Making it up, I’m guessing. Even your own citation gives a six in grouping at 50 yards.
No, 20m sounds pretty high for the effective range of an early revolver in the middle of a firefight, particularly when used by a civilian with possibly no training.

I'm sure that you were able to achieve a higher theoretical range with a modern pistol in ideal surroundings against a stationary target that gave you time to aim. But that is not what Hussar was talking about.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Sacrosanct

Legend
Nope, the effective range for a 19th century popular revolver was much greater than 20m. His own citation he gave mentions a six inch shot group at 50 yards. It’s also a flaw to think those older revolvers were much less accurate than modern firearms once smokeless powder and metal cartridges were around. In some cases, they are more accurate because a huge factor to accuracy is barrel length, and a Colt Peacemaker is much more accurate than my issued Beretta 92F when I was in the military.

Shotguns were extremely popular among regular homesteaders because they could only afford one gun in many cases, and the shotgun was versatile. But when you’re talking about combat (both the military and gun fights), pistols were used way more frequently. Historical fact. For many reasons. So that original claim that shotguns were used way more than pistols is simply not true.

And quite frankly, I would much rather have a Navy Colt over a double barrel shotgun unless I was in a room when the fighting starts. You’ve got two shots with a shotgun, and won’t do any damage to a target past a couple dozen meters. You’ve got six shots with greater accuracy and more stopping power at range with a colt Navy revolver. I’m here to tell you from experience, when fighting starts, you want as many shots as possible.

Shotguns? Great for interior fighting and trench warfare out to 25m (once you get pump action and can load more than two rounds)

Pistols? Great for up to 50m, Fire more rounds, easy reload, easy to carry

Carbines? Great for 35-100m

Long Rifles? great for 50+m

Even if you ignore my rather extensive training and usage of firearms, historical records back this up.
 

Sacrosanct

Legend
Additionally, between the Navy Colt and single action army Colt (Peacemaker), over a half a million firearms were produced, most of those ending up in the civilian market. And Harrington & Richardson sold over a million revolvers in the 19th century.
 

I dare to bet we will the influence of last generation of videogames in the future pencil-and-dices RPGs, and the gunners will be an example of this. Haven you seen the gunner from the game "Lost Ark"? You can get a idea about this.

Other reason to not use firearms is they are too noisy for adventures in enemy zones where you don't want to be discovered. A shot and you are listened in a mile. And with a trained dog could follow you with the smell of the gunpowder.

What if an artificer gnome in Ravenloft wants to craft modern weapons from d20 Past? Some Game Masters could curse nPCs with therianthropic bulletproof traits.
 

Celebrim

Legend
Pistols: Not currently a military weapon but their origins are in a military weapons, specifically as weapons for cavalry and naval personnel during boarding actions. The pistols designed as military weapons are generally much larger and longer barreled than those that are used for personnel protection (such as which are issued to officers or carried by civilians). Many of the early Naval and Cavalry pistols had more kinetic energy than any pistol up until the Magnum loads of the mid 20th century. I've heard of skilled pistol wielders hitting targets reliably at up to 70m, but under 20m is more realistic and in the midst of a running fight the historical evidence is that even that distance can prove difficult. They are still plenty capable of killing someone with an unlucky shot at much further out than you are likely to be able to successfully aim.

Shotguns: Origins of the weapon is as a 'fowling piece' for hunting bird. Characteristics of the weapon are not what is generally portrayed in Hollywood or in some games. It is not an area of effect weapon, and it's not particularly good for 'clearing a room'. Depending on the choke, at 15 yards the spread might just be 4" in diameter, and on my relatively unchocked double barrel the buckshot spread at 40 yards was just under two feet. Rather than simulating them as area of effect weapons for clearing out areas, it's probably more realistic to simulate them as having a bonus to accuracy in close quarters. The shotgun gets some minor use as a military weapon. In WWI the USA issued pump action shotguns with bayonet lugs to its assault troops for use in close quarters trench fighting, since they could be fired more rapidly and handled more readily than battle rifles in close quarters. (Semiautomatic rifles at the time were very unreliable.) They were so feared by German troops that it prompted Germany to demand the weapon be considered an illegal weapon of war (this, while Germany was using chlorine gas). They still get some use as breaching tool for opening doors and the like, but have largely been superceded by submachine guns and assault rifles as close quarters military weapons.

Wild West: The most common weapon was neither the pistol nor the shotgun. It was the carbine - a comparatively short rifle designed to shoot a pistol cartridge. The iconic example is the Winchester model 1873, which was commonly chambered either for the .32-30 or .38-40 - two of the most common pistol rounds of the day. They were more accurate and powerful than pistols, and since they used the same ammunition as your 'six shooter' you only had to carry one kind.
 
Last edited:

Nope, the effective range for a 19th century popular revolver was much greater than 20m. His own citation he gave mentions a six inch shot group at 50 yards. It’s also a flaw to think those older revolvers were much less accurate than modern firearms once smokeless powder and metal cartridges were around. In some cases, they are more accurate because a huge factor to accuracy is barrel length, and a Colt Peacemaker is much more accurate than my issued Beretta 92F when I was in the military.
I think its likely that the shot grouping at 50 yards that they are talking about is under ideal conditions such as shooting at a target whist aiming, rather than an effective range in a firefight. The fact that the bullets retain killing power over much longer distances doesn't change the fact that trying to hit an actively avoiding target whilst on the run, on horseback, ducking behind cover, or otherwise actively trying to avoid getting shot yourself reduces the effective range of a pistol to considerably less than the theoretical maximum.

I'm not saying that you personally wouldn't be reliably disabling a human at 50m with a pistol in the middle of a running battle. But for the average person, who may or may not have had military training and is likely panicking a little about being at real risk of death if they stand still long enough to take good aim, I'm still going to go with the 20m effective range.
 

Draegn

Explorer
Curious, for those who know more about firearms, how would you represent the special ammunition that are available for shotguns? Such as the dragon breath rounds.

I can imagine sneaky goblins using illusion to appear as dragonborn, firing dragon breath from shotguns at a group of humans. They leave one or two survivors who tell the tale of being attacked by dragonborn. If a war starts they then clean up after both sides expend themselves.
 

CleverNickName

Limit Break Dancing
In real life, statistics show that roughly 1 in 3 victims die from a single gunshot wound, 2/3 survive assuming they get immediate medical attention.

The average person in D&D is modeled by the Level 1 Commoner

A Level 1 Commoner has 4hp

Therefore, the bullet must average 1/3rd of hits at 4+ dmg, and 2/3rd of hits at 3 or less dmg.

Therefore the correct damage for a bullet from a modern firearm is 1d3+1.
If we only look at real-life statistics, and we assume all people are statistically equal to a 4hp commoner, then no weapon in the game should ever deal more than 4 points of damage (when the probability of death is 1). Right?

I guess another way of looking at it is, a human commoner can have up to 10 hit points, with 4 being the average. It's extremely rare, but possible, for a level 1 commoner to have 11 hit points (16 Con and max hp). Could the one-third of gunshot survivors be the rare one-third of humanity that has above-average hit points and/or above-average Constitution? If so, the base damage should be 2d4 or maybe 1d8, instead of 1d4+1.

Unless a weapon were capable of killing more than one person in a single strike--say, a grenade or grenade equivalent (fireball spell, thunderwave, etc.) And here in the real world we also have elephants and moose and other things that are bigger and tougher than humans, and we have modified weapons with which to hunt them (an elephant gun would have to deal 76 points of damage!), but that's another topic.

Sorry, I love statistics and I eat this stuff up. I agree with the original post, however: firearm damage should not be crazy, and I've seen stuff online where the damage for a firearm is absurdly high, like 3d6 and so forth. And that's just nuts.
 
Last edited:

Satyrn

First Post
Curious, for those who know more about firearms, how would you represent the special ammunition that are available for shotguns? Such as the dragon breath rounds.

I can imagine sneaky goblins using illusion to appear as dragonborn, firing dragon breath from shotguns at a group of humans. They leave one or two survivors who tell the tale of being attacked by dragonborn. If a war starts they then clean up after both sides expend themselves.
I'd probably just convert the damage from piercing into fire.

Although in my game, if you want a gun that deals fire damage, you want one made by Maliwan, and he didn't make shotguns.
 

Sacrosanct

Legend
I think its likely that the shot grouping at 50 yards that they are talking about is under ideal conditions such as shooting at a target whist aiming, rather than an effective range in a firefight. The fact that the bullets retain killing power over much longer distances doesn't change the fact that trying to hit an actively avoiding target whilst on the run, on horseback, ducking behind cover, or otherwise actively trying to avoid getting shot yourself reduces the effective range of a pistol to considerably less than the theoretical maximum.

I'm not saying that you personally wouldn't be reliably disabling a human at 50m with a pistol in the middle of a running battle. But for the average person, who may or may not have had military training and is likely panicking a little about being at real risk of death if they stand still long enough to take good aim, I'm still going to go with the 20m effective range.
We we talk about maximum effective ranges, we're already considering those factors in combat. The maximum effective range of an M16A2 is about 300m. That doesn't mean that's as far as the bullet will be deadly, that means that the maximum range a decent shooter can effectively hit someone. Besides, the same rules apply to every ranged weapon. Why are you penalizing pistols when the same factors apply to carbines, rifles, bows, crossbows, throwing daggers, slings, etc? The heat of combat is the heat of combat, and you either aim, or you spray and pray. If you're going to put pistols at 20m effective range, you better put rifles at 50m, long bows at 35m, etc.

This is a 25m shot group from a decent (not super expert) shooter.
 
Last edited:

Sacrosanct

Legend
Curious, for those who know more about firearms, how would you represent the special ammunition that are available for shotguns? Such as the dragon breath rounds.

I can imagine sneaky goblins using illusion to appear as dragonborn, firing dragon breath from shotguns at a group of humans. They leave one or two survivors who tell the tale of being attacked by dragonborn. If a war starts they then clean up after both sides expend themselves.
Most gimmick rounds wouldn't have much of a significant difference in gameplay to warrant changes. Like flechette rounds. For dragonsbreath, most of the initial damage is still from the magnesium pellets hitting you, so the only change I would make is to give it an incendiary ability (sets flammable targets on fire, maybe 1d4 points initial damage and 1d4 at the start of your next turn if not extinguished).

It all depends on how detailed you want. But beware the rabbit hole I mentioned earlier. Most shotgun rounds, in a modern setting, would be:

birdshot: damage only out to 10m, any armor offers total protection, double prof bonus to hit
buckshot: standard damage and range (I would list it at 25m), double prof bonus to hit
slug: 100m range, standard prof bonus to hit
bolo: same as buckshot
dragonsbreath: same as birdshot for pellet damage, fire damage out to 30m (if you want to get super realistic, every subsequent round has a 25% cumulative change of jamming because it fouls the barrel so much)
FRAG-12 grenade: 1/4 damage and radius as 40mm grendade
flash thunder: no damage, but acts like stun grenade (flash/bang)
armor piercing: ignores armor bonus, standard prof to hit, 100m range, half damage
flare: like a flare gun, no damage
gas: half the radius of a gas grenade (like tear gas), no damage
bean bag: stun damage only
screacher: no damage, just a loud screeching noise (used to scare animals)

Anything other than buckshot or birdshot or slug I'd have a lot higher cost of ammunition as well.
 

We we talk about maximum effective ranges, we're already considering those factors in combat. The maximum effective range of an M16A2 is about 300m. That doesn't mean that's as far as the bullet will be deadly, that means that the maximum range a decent shooter can effectively hit someone. Besides, the same rules apply to every ranged weapon. Why are you penalizing pistols when the same factors apply to carbines, rifles, bows, crossbows, throwing daggers, slings, etc? The heat of combat is the heat of combat, and you either aim, or you spray and pray. If you're going to put pistols at 20m effective range, you better put rifles at 50m, long bows at 35m, etc.
We're not talking maximum distance that you can achieve a nice shot grouping on a shooting range. We're talking effective range in an actual firefight. Pistols generally don't have the luxury of being able to take a shot unnoticed by your opponents mid-fight, so your target is likely to be actively evading, and you will be doing the same and/or trying to snap a shot off before they do. Plus the whole fear spiking your adrenaline levels and other psychological effects that might affect your aim.

I'm pretty sure that I haven't mentioned ranges for rifles, bows etc. I will say that even using modern compound bows which are as powerful and much more stable than longbows, hunters seem to be frowned on if they try a shot at more than 40-ish yards. And that would be taking time to aim against a slow-moving or stationary animal, not one in rapid motion or shooting back at you. Volleying shafts into a unit of soldiers is one thing. Reliably hitting a moving man-sized target is something else.

When this discussion leaves the realm of realism and starts talking about how D&D would judge pistol ranges, comparing with other weapons is absolutely something that should be done.

This is a 25m shot group from a decent (not super expert) shooter.
Cool. Was the shooter standing in a solid shooting stance, spacing their shots, controlling their breathing, and taking time to aim?
How many of those things would they be doing in an actual firefight?
 

I love guns and I love D&D but I hate mixing them, especially with D&D abstract HP mechanics which are quite honestly not very good at modeling the effects of deadly weapons past L1.

Though that holds for swords and bows so it shouldn't bother me more with guns.
In my 3rd edition campaign I try to some what approach this with the 3x critical effect of guns. But as you say, with large pools of health, all semblance of realism goes out the window.
 

Sacrosanct

Legend
We're not talking maximum distance that you can achieve a nice shot grouping on a shooting range. We're talking effective range in an actual firefight. Pistols generally don't have the luxury of being able to take a shot unnoticed by your opponents mid-fight, so your target is likely to be actively evading, and you will be doing the same and/or trying to snap a shot off before they do. Plus the whole fear spiking your adrenaline levels and other psychological effects that might affect your aim.

I'm pretty sure that I haven't mentioned ranges for rifles, bows etc. I will say that even using modern compound bows which are as powerful and much more stable than longbows, hunters seem to be frowned on if they try a shot at more than 40-ish yards. And that would be taking time to aim against a slow-moving or stationary animal, not one in rapid motion or shooting back at you. Volleying shafts into a unit of soldiers is one thing. Reliably hitting a moving man-sized target is something else.

When this discussion leaves the realm of realism and starts talking about how D&D would judge pistol ranges, comparing with other weapons is absolutely something that should be done.

Cool. Was the shooter standing in a solid shooting stance, spacing their shots, controlling their breathing, and taking time to aim?
How many of those things would they be doing in an actual firefight?
Again, all of those factors apply to all ranged weapons, but you seem to only be penalizing pistols. Or are you suggesting we need to reduce the range of long bows in the game to 40 yards? And if not, why have a different standard for pistols and not any other ranged weapon?

Even outside of game context, “maximum effective range” is an established term with a defined meaning, and each firearm has been established with an official value. Cutting that value in half based on your opinion is odd, because it’s estsblished by industry professionals based on ballistic testing and practical application. It would be like saying, “The top speed of a race car isn’t really 180mph, because with these other factors on the driver, they’d never go that fast.” Despite that the maximum speed is in fact 180mph.
 

Celebrim

Legend
Curious, for those who know more about firearms, how would you represent the special ammunition that are available for shotguns? Such as the dragon breath rounds.
As largely ineffectual as weapons.

While there have been plenty of attempts to improve on the rifled slug and buckshot, there are still no loads I'm aware of that are more effective and reliable. Dragon's breath in particular isn't really designed to be a weapon, but rather a pyrotechnics show. You might as well take a Roman Candle and fire it at the target. Damage to unprotected eyes is possible, but based on the video's I've seen I'd expect even a 100% cotton long-sleeved t-shirt and a pair of blue jeans to provide adequate protection except at very close range. It will ignite straw and other highly inflammable objects, but that's about the limit of what I'd expect.

The basic problem is that a shotgun shell has some very hard limits in terms of weight and volume, and some of the things you can do with a large artillery shell just aren't feasible to scale down to the scale of a shotgun shell. And even large artillery shells have better things to do than put on light shows. The closet I can think over to the 'dragon breath' shells are the anti-aircraft shells that were developed for the Yamato's 18" guns, and they were basically gimmicks that were never successfully deployed and and probably wouldn't have done any good if they were.
 

Again, all of those factors apply to all ranged weapons, but you seem to only be penalizing pistols. Or are you suggesting we need to reduce the range of long bows in the game to 40 yards? And if not, why have a different standard for pistols and not any other ranged weapon?
Again so far, you've been talking real-life properties, and so have I. When we start talking about D&D weapon ranges, the same multipliers that are applied to bows will likely apply to pistols and other firearms.

Could you kindly explain what you mean by me "only penalising pistols" please? I have not discussed any ranged weapons other than pistols, and a bit about bows that I do not believe painted pistols in a poor light compared to them. I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at.

Even outside of game context, “maximum effective range” is an established term with a defined meaning, and each firearm has been established with an official value. Cutting that value in half based on your opinion is odd, because it’s estsblished by industry professionals based on ballistic testing and practical application. It would be like saying, “The top speed of a race car isn’t really 180mph, because with these other factors on the driver, they’d never go that fast.” Despite that the maximum speed is in fact 180mph.
And once again, the value that you're using as "maximum effective range" is not the value that we're discussing.
If you go asked those industry professionals how the "maximum effective range" of a weapon would compare to the "effective practical range" that the average person would likely be reliably hitting people in a life-and-death firefight situation, I believe that they too would give a much lower number.
Seriously I'd actually be interested to know, since its likely not dependent upon weapon factors at all.

We're not, and have never been discussing the equivalent of the top speed of a race car on a clear straight track in good weather. We've been discussing the safe speed of the average car in typical use situations including traffic, weather, and non-clear roads. Some pistol bullets probably retain dangerous levels of energy even after travelling a mile or so, but as with the 180mph figure, that would probably not be the best basis to judge effective range on.
 

Sacrosanct

Legend
Maximum effective range IS effective practical range. That's what it means. It's the literal definition of it.

There aren't many records of pistol distance in combat, but there are a few:

* R.J. Thomas, 1969 in Vietnam using a 1911. Killed 10 Viet Cong as they approached his downed helicopter up to ranges of over 100 meters away
* Wild Bill, 1861, armed with his .36 caliber SA Navy revolver, shot David McCanles at 74 meters.
* Wild Bill again, 1865, took out Davis Tutt at 75-80 meters with his pistol
* Sr. Airman Andy Brown took out an active shooter Dean Mellberg in 1994 with his pistol at 70 meters
* An Edmond OK officer arrived on scene with an active shooter shooting at them with an M1 Garand (US WWII standard issue rifle in 30.06 caliber), and hit him with his second shot (Glock 21 .45 ACP) at 75 meters
* St. Joseph, Mo, 1998, a gunman killed two cops and wounded a fireman before being shot by an officer at 60-70m away with is Glock
* Bobby Tribble, 1997, off duty cop shot an armed robber at 27 yards---with a tiny snub nosed .38, while under fire from said robber

Then there are lots of other references with much less detail, like a man in his 60s in Texas taking out a guy shooting at cops at 65 meters with his .357, or in San Antonio a cop returning fire and hitting his target at 100 meters. Or a reference about the longest pistol shot in WWII being at 88 meters.

But honestly though, even without all of those examples, I'm pretty confident that anyone with experience with firearms, and anyone who has been in a high stress situation where firearms were used (I've qualify for both), would find the notion that the maximum effective range of a pistol is 20m as laughable. It just doesn't make any sense. The military largely defines the maximum effective range as having a 50% change of hitting your target under the conditions you described. And for a pistol like my issued 92F Beretta 9mm, it was 50m.
For revolvers, it's a bit higher due to longer and stationary barrels (and 92Fs suck). Yeah, a lot of times in a fight it becomes spray and pray. But that's why people train so much. Once you have muscle memory, your reaction and body does the exact same thing when under mental stress as when practicing on the range. You don't even think about it.
 
Last edited:

Celebrim

Legend
And once again, the value that you're using as "maximum effective range" is not the value that we're discussing.
If you look at this in D&D terms, it might be a little more empirical as to what we are talking about. (I'm going to discuss 3e because that's what I'm familiar with, but you can translate this into 5e.)

Hitting a stationary man sized target is DC 5. If the range increment of a pistol is say 30 feet, then we'd expect even a novice to hit a paper target fairly reliably. This is especially true in that a modern semi-automatic pistol has a fairly high inherent accuracy bonus (let's say +3) in that it's a better than masterwork quality flat shooting high velocity weapon that doesn't at close ranges require a user to compensate for ballistic flight or anything of the such. If we move the target further away, it will be increasingly hard to hit the target since every 30 feet back adds a -2 to hit, but even a DC 11 at 40 yards is not a difficult shot. Or hypothetical novice with a +3 bonus to hit still needs but an 8 plus, and as this is a simple weapon proficiency would be acquired very rapidly - basically after a time or two at the range.

A good 'grouping' on such a target isn't that hard either. Now we are talking about a diminutive target, so effective -4 to hit, or a DC of 9. Again, at 30 feet this isn't that hard.

The hypothetical routine shooter in D&D terms might be someone with a 14 Dex, who is a 4th level Expert (maybe trading for a couple levels of fighter if he's been a soldier or law enforcement officer), and has Weapon Focus (Handgun). He routinely puts a grouping within 4" at 10 or 20 yards, and often gets a good grouping at 30 or 40 yards.

But, put this person in a combat situation, and things get much harder in a hurry. At the least, hitting a live target in D&D is DC 10 rather than DC 5, and higher if the target has DEX. In a fire fight, very likely you are also talking about both the shooter and the target taking a defensive action because bullets, so now you are talking a -4 penalty to hit and a target DC of 12 or higher. Once you start putting some range increments into the fight, and once the target has partial cover, actually landing a bullet starts getting fairly hard even for someone like an FBI agent who has put a lot of time in on the firing range.

If you further add some firefight realism that D&D typically ignores because it's not focused on this sort of thing, by considering unaimed 'snap' shots, firing while moving, and firing at a moving target, you can see why in an actual fire fight you usually have large numbers of shots fired by both sides. Speaking of the FBI, there are some important historical cases that come to mind, such as the 1986 FBI Miami shootout, where a combination of all the above circumstances with low low stopping power weapons by the FBI agents lead to a prolonged bloody firefight.

Remember, in D&D terms, a pistol with a 30' range increment - which might be typical for a short barreled weapon - has an "maximum effective range" of over 100 yards (200 yards if you have the 'far shot' feat or equivalent). But good luck hitting at this range in combat with a -20 to hit on top of your other problems. The practical range of the weapon is going to be much lower - say 20-30 yards depending on the users skill. (Also, if we are being gritty in our realism, the real world doesn't have any 20th level characters - even 6th level is a pretty epic person in real life. Also, if we are being hyper realistic, D&D isn't a great system for doing it, but then again few RPGs really are).
 

Sacrosanct

Legend
[MENTION=6802951]Cap'n Kobold[/MENTION]

I also wanted to clarify that if it seems like I'm being argumentative, I apologize if it's coming across like that. I think I've agreed with you on every single issue over the past 3 years, so I do respect your opinion, and don't want to act like I'm disparaging you or insulting you. If I am, I'm sorry for that.
 

Flexor the Mighty!

18/100 Strength!
Supporter
We we talk about maximum effective ranges, we're already considering those factors in combat. The maximum effective range of an M16A2 is about 300m. That doesn't mean that's as far as the bullet will be deadly, that means that the maximum range a decent shooter can effectively hit someone. Besides, the same rules apply to every ranged weapon. Why are you penalizing pistols when the same factors apply to carbines, rifles, bows, crossbows, throwing daggers, slings, etc? The heat of combat is the heat of combat, and you either aim, or you spray and pray. If you're going to put pistols at 20m effective range, you better put rifles at 50m, long bows at 35m, etc.

This is a 25m shot group from a decent (not super expert) shooter.
that Remington? Uberti clone?
 

Mythological Figures & Maleficent Monsters

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top