Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ledded" data-source="post: 1425509" data-attributes="member: 12744">Well, I still think that you are much more likely to get a serious wound from a firearm round than a longsword, on average, for the reasons I listed above.&nbsp; Sure, a solid body hit from a longsword is going to do a lot of tissue damage, heck even more than some bullets, but your chances of delivering that are much less than the bullet's.&nbsp; There are too many ways to realistically avoid the longsword or make a mistake/miscalculation that could turn an otherwise fatal wound with it to a minor scratch (just making the strike at the wrong angle with your swing can turn an evisceration into a nasty scratch with a bruise), which is governed by quite a few variables like wielder's strength, speed, training, precision, etc.&nbsp; &nbsp;If you want some good examples, however, of longsword and medieval weaponary damage, find some good sources for the digs done at the Battle of Wisby;&nbsp; I have a periodical with an article done by a researcher of that site and wounds against unarmored opponents like skulls caved in 4 inches or more, missing jawbones, and arms missing at the shoulder abound.&nbsp;So *on average* I think that a bullet will do more damage, but not because of the actual physics involving tissue displacement, etc, but more because it's more likely that a hit will score a serious wound, and you are more likely to be able (on average) to get off more shots with a semi-automatic with a little better accuracy than a sword wielder with his sword (this is not *always* true, but on average I think it is... there's just not that many expert swordsmen running around in modern times).&nbsp;As far as actual tissue damage for a well-placed strike, well, having your arm lopped off or your head turned into a canoe vs. taking a .22 short to the shoulder has an obvious difference <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="ledded, post: 1425509, member: 12744"] Well, I still think that you are much more likely to get a serious wound from a firearm round than a longsword, on average, for the reasons I listed above. Sure, a solid body hit from a longsword is going to do a lot of tissue damage, heck even more than some bullets, but your chances of delivering that are much less than the bullet's. There are too many ways to realistically avoid the longsword or make a mistake/miscalculation that could turn an otherwise fatal wound with it to a minor scratch (just making the strike at the wrong angle with your swing can turn an evisceration into a nasty scratch with a bruise), which is governed by quite a few variables like wielder's strength, speed, training, precision, etc. If you want some good examples, however, of longsword and medieval weaponary damage, find some good sources for the digs done at the Battle of Wisby; I have a periodical with an article done by a researcher of that site and wounds against unarmored opponents like skulls caved in 4 inches or more, missing jawbones, and arms missing at the shoulder abound. So *on average* I think that a bullet will do more damage, but not because of the actual physics involving tissue displacement, etc, but more because it's more likely that a hit will score a serious wound, and you are more likely to be able (on average) to get off more shots with a semi-automatic with a little better accuracy than a sword wielder with his sword (this is not *always* true, but on average I think it is... there's just not that many expert swordsmen running around in modern times). As far as actual tissue damage for a well-placed strike, well, having your arm lopped off or your head turned into a canoe vs. taking a .22 short to the shoulder has an obvious difference ;) [/QUOTE]

Verification