D&D 5E Why do guns do so much damage?

[LordEntrails]

A bullet puts a finger sized hole in your body

This absolutely ignores the effect that the shock wave passing through the body does. A bullet has no need to hit an organ to explode it.

Anyway, all of this is useless. If you care about real world then the simple fact that firearms made swords obsolete is enough to prove your question false. If you don't care about real world, then it doesn't matter, play how you want.

 

[Steampunkette]

This absolutely ignores the effect that the shock wave passing through the body does. A bullet has no need to hit an organ to explode it.

Anyway, all of this is useless. If you care about real world then the simple fact that firearms made swords obsolete is enough to prove your question false. If you don't care about real world, then it doesn't matter, play how you want.

The math does not bear out, as it turns out.

But you kinda skipped over 19 pages of posts so it's understandable.

Assuming the large end of projectiles, a .69 caliber musketball, traveling at 300m/s which is the average muzzle velocity of a smooth bore musket, is gonna have 1,440J of kinetic energy, but only around 9.7kg·m/s of momentum to impart on the human body.

While the temporary cavity of that ball at a blistering 414m/s carrying 2,793J and imparting 13.248 kg·m/s will be about 3 inches in diameter, the permanent cavity falls back down to 1.4 inches in diameter. Something with half the joules and 3/4 the momentum is going to do a commensurately smaller amount of damage. Sadly, the 414m/s is the only video evidence we have to go off of which also shows the temporary cavity.

Meanwhile the longsword traveling at a mere 21.4m/s will have only around 300J but impart 27.82kg·m/s of force, plus cutting with the draw... So... YMMV.

Also "Explode" is a terrible description of the compressive and tensile forces the organs and such will undergo in the temporary cavity. Your organs aren't watermelons.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Anyway, all of this is useless. If you care about real world then the simple fact that firearms made swords obsolete is enough to prove your question false. If you don't care about real world, then it doesn't matter, play how you want.

Firearms didn't make swords obsolete for centuries. The last swords issued in earnest I can think of in America was the Model 1913 Cavalry Saber - and the Polish cavalry made a new type issued in 1934 and used them successfully against infantry multiple times in WWII including at the Charge of Krojanty which the Germans turned into propaganda by claiming that the Poles had charged their tanks rather than broken their infantry with a cavalry charge and the tank counter-attack had bailed them out.

If you care about the real world then swords against unarmoured opponents were extremely effective. Where they suffer is where the cutting blows Steampunkette advocates met armour - when the entire length of the blade that met flesh would have to cut through the armour. You needed narrow points for that for high pressure, and those points didn't have the shock impact of bullets. Not that I'd like to be stabbed mind you.

 

[Steampunkette]

Hmmm... interesting! Temporary Cavitation Tissue Stretch - Emergency Medicine

The temporary cavity caused by common handgun bullets is generally too small to be a significant wounding factor in all but the most sensitive tissues (brain and liver). Center-fire rifle bullets and large handgun bullets (e.g., .44 magnum), often induce a large temporary cavity [10- to 25-cm (4- to 10-in) diameter] in tissue. This can be a significant wounding factor, depending on the characteristics of the tissue in which it forms.

So under 4 inches, not dangerous. Over 4 inches, dangerous. Medically speaking.

Now -that- is interesting. Isn't that interesting? That MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS would state that the 3 inch temporary cavitation of a .69 caliber musketball fired faster than the upper end of what was considered a normal musket shot wouldn't be a "Significant Wounding Factor".

That's just -weird-. Why would Doctors who deal with bullet wounds say that a 3 inch or smaller temporary cavity isn't a significant wounding factor unless it... wasn't?

 

[Wyldekarde]

The speed isn't important. It's the amount of damage done that matters.

A bullet puts a finger sized hole in your body. A battleaxe will put a hole you can fit your ENTIRE HAND IN.

The speed of the bullet is how it punches that hole in the body, but it's the size of the hole and the amount of damaged material that matters.

Actually, the reason that a gun is more damaging is because of the energy it transfers onto the body in terms of damage. A sword will damage everything that it hits. A bullet enters with a finger-sized hole but exits and damages everything within a cone of it towards all internal organs almost simultaneously that wave of energy affects. It enters with a small hole but exits with a much bigger hole. Also, the amount of energy generated by the bullet is so much more than the sword despite its size. Now with the flintlock, this effect isn't as much because the energy it generates is much smaller. But with modern firearms, the amount of energy is so much greater. If realism was to be taken into consideration in the game, firearms will do so much more damage. The damage it has now is already a compromise to achieve game balance so as not to make a firearm too powerful in-game and make it less fun. And yes, I agree that it's the size of the hole and the amount of damaged material that matters. A bullet enters with an inch hole but exits with a foot hole. (depending on the firearm and ammo type used).

 

[Steampunkette]

Actually, the reason that a gun is more damaging is because of the energy it transfers onto the body in terms of damage. A sword will damage everything that it hits. A bullet enters with a finger-sized hole but exits and damages everything within a cone of it towards all internal organs almost simultaneously that wave of energy affects. It enters with a small hole but exits with a much bigger hole. Also, the amount of energy generated by the bullet is so much more than the sword despite its size. Now with the flintlock, this effect isn't as much because the energy it generates is much smaller. But with modern firearms, the amount of energy is so much greater. If realism was to be taken into consideration in the game, firearms will do so much more damage. The damage it has now is already a compromise to achieve game balance so as not to make a firearm too powerful in-game and make it less fun. And yes, I agree that it's the size of the hole and the amount of damaged material that matters. A bullet enters with an inch hole but exits with a foot hole. (depending on the firearm and ammo type used).

The type of firearm being "Early Renaissance Firearm" and "Ball".

And the damage they do is -massively- less than you're expecting. Scroll up a few posts and you'll see the math, science, and medical assessment from Emergency Room workers.

Deadly, certain. But not to the extent or for the reasons a lot of people think they were.

 

[Ovinomancer]

The math does not bear out, as it turns out.

But you kinda skipped over 19 pages of posts so it's understandable.

Assuming the large end of projectiles, a .69 caliber musketball, traveling at 300m/s which is the average muzzle velocity of a smooth bore musket, is gonna have 1,440J of kinetic energy, but only around 9.7kg·m/s of momentum to impart on the human body.

Which is why bullets don't throw people backwards. Momentum is not at all the same thing as force, nor does it matter at all to the damage of a bullet, except that you might derive velocity from it, which can be a useful number.

While the temporary cavity of that ball at a blistering 414m/s carrying 2,793J and imparting 13.248 kg·m/s will be about 3 inches in diameter, the permanent cavity falls back down to 1.4 inches in diameter. Something with half the joules and 3/4 the momentum is going to do a commensurately smaller amount of damage. Sadly, the 414m/s is the only video evidence we have to go off of which also shows the temporary cavity.

We're back to the claim that flintlock pistols had half the velocity of the rifle, I see. I went back, after our last toss on this, and looked up where this entered the thread. The only provenance for this is that you said a friend messaged you and told you this fact. No source, no cite. It doesn't align with the actually sourced and cited data in the thread, which show a velocity of just below 400m/s, empirically tested. And, before the claim of "modern powder" shows up again, the flintlock muskets had about the same velocity you're claiming from whatever source you have, so modern powder cannot both replicate the muskets AND be the cause of supercharged pistols in the same study with the same methodology. I mean, they use half the charge in the pistol (they list all the pertinent data). So, no, half the velocity is a non-starter.

However, if we're looking at that 200 grain musket ball from the flintlock musket (which seems light, given the Brown Bess was over 500 grains), then the kinetic energy is 2,229 kgm^2/s^2 (I'm not sure where you get the above, are you using a different weight than 0.013kg? As I said, this looks very light, but I'm trying to stick to your numbers). To give a reference, the .44 Magnum pistol cited in your article has a kinetic energy of 1147J at the muzzle. The flintlock pistol listed in @Doug McCrae's article is 1071J. Seems we're absolutely in the danger zone with both!

Meanwhile the longsword traveling at a mere 21.4m/s will have only around 300J but impart 27.82kg·m/s of force, plus cutting with the draw... So... YMMV.

Also "Explode" is a terrible description of the compressive and tensile forces the organs and such will undergo in the temporary cavity. Your organs aren't watermelons.

Wrong units for force, and the force of the flintlock musket about is dramatically higher. The actual acceleration value isn't the same as the velocity, because it has to reach that velocity down an approx 1 meter barrel in about 4 milliseconds. Your previous calculations for bullet force are off by about 3 orders of magnitude. Acceleration is around 103,000 m/s^2, not 414. So it's not 0.013kg*414, it's 0.013kg*103,000, or 1,339N of force, in an area about 2/3 of an inch across (actually, this force will be transferred along the path -- it's not an inelastic collision so all the force isn't immediately applied).

Swords are nasty, but your evaluation of bullets is consistently very far off the mark.

I hope I've provided enough clear points, and addressed the previously cited counter-points, sufficiently well to avoid being accused of bad-faith and being blocked, again.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think honestly most people are applying the logic they see in cinema around weapons. Which to me is fine. Games also often make trained hand to hand self defense more effective than it would be in the real world (particularly against weapons) because they are going more for the Bourne movies feel around that than the what would happen if you really tried to disarm a mugger in an alley feel.

 

[Neonchameleon]

However, if we're looking at that 200 grain musket ball from the flintlock musket (which seems light, given the Brown Bess was over 500 grains), then the kinetic energy is 2,229 kgm^2/s^2 (I'm not sure where you get the above, are you using a different weight than 0.013kg? As I said, this looks very light, but I'm trying to stick to your numbers). To give a reference, the .44 Magnum pistol cited in your article has a kinetic energy of 1147J at the muzzle. The flintlock pistol listed in @Doug McCrae's article is 1071J. Seems we're absolutely in the danger zone with both!

Just to pitch in with some actual numbers Wikipedia cites numbers and sources on the Brown Bess:

There is no doubt that the Brown Bess's bullet was lethal at its full range of effective fire. In the mid-18th century, Robertson measured the speed of musket bullets on a ballistic pendulum. According to him, the speed of a round musket bullet slug was about 1804 feet per second (550 m/s). That is, the muzzle energy of the musket was about 3,500 to 4,000 joules, which is comparable to the energy of modern rifle cartridges. Modern ballistic tests have confirmed these data.[13] According to the Russian Lieutenant-General Ivan G. Gogel, all the muskets of the European nations, were able to penetrate a wooden shield with a thickness of 1 inch (2.54 cm), at a distance of 300 yards.[14]​

Stepping back for why these numbers are important the Land Pattern Musket, nicknamed the Brown Bess, was the 0.75 inch calibre musket that was the main infantry weapon of the British Empire from 1722 to 1838. That said the Brown Bess saw service from 1722, the first flintlocks from somewhere between 1610 and 1630 depending on the definition - and the Renaissance is normally considered to be 15th and 16th century, so ended before the flintlock.

 

[LordEntrails]

But you kinda skipped over 19 pages of posts so it's understandable.

No, actually I didn't. It's just not relevant. I could argue your numbers and your assumptions. But if you make the right/wrong assumptions, you can use numbers to "prove" just about anything.

But it doesn't matter. It's a game, so justify it however you want.

Firearms didn't make swords obsolete for centuries.

But they did. Fact.