NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="GreyLord" data-source="post: 8294743" data-attributes="member: 4348">To add to this, not sure if many here have seen someone hit by firearms. A small caliber weapon may not be all that damaging, but the bullet still can tumble if it does not exit.  A tumbling round does a LOT of damage internally, probably FAR MORE than any hand weapon unless you can just stick it in and have long enough to cut someone from sternum to groin.I think it was the tumbling weapon that caused so much damage on Reagan on the assassination attempt.  The round not only hit him, it tumbled around in him.  This is also another reason hollowpoints are normally outlawed, far greater chance that they explode on impact and tumble through a victim.Now, in earlier times they actually used quite a bit of powder and the guns were pretty HIGH caliber comparatively.  A high caliber "bullet" that is simply designed as such will go right through a person.  This is true.  The hole will depend on the Caliber. More powder and larger ammunition brings devastating injuries.  Ever seen a hand sized hole in someone...or an animal that you hunted.  This of course is if you use a rather HIGH caliber weapon, but guns that are used by a person can do this far easier than carrying the equivalent weaponry that is not a firearm.  Very few weapons will do that to someone as quickly or rapidly.  You'd have to be a freaking he-man to get a hand weapon in someone and do that much damage in even half the time.With the weapons of those times, you are probably looking at a hole that is maybe an inch in diameter.  So...I suppose a similarity to a sword could be made.  IF, that is, you are strong enough to actually shove that sword right through someone.  That's not as easy as one may think.  A high caliber weapon, as long as you aim it right, will do it every time...no effort beyond aiming and shooting.  A sword...or any hand weapon...will take a little more effort. One could call it about even in the 1500s and 1600s.  Swords were still effective weapons to have around.  Polearms were still effective.Come better rifles and other weapons...guns became faster to fire, had far greater effective ranges for less training, and thus dominated warfare.  IT was NOT just range, it was rate of fire and ease of use.  A trained soldier with a revolver has a lot of shots they can unload very quickly and adjust for their misses.  A rifle adds a LOT with it's range.  There's a reason guns started to dominate warfare.    Just thought I'd toss this on your comments as I think you have made some really good points about firearms in your past few posts.</blockquote>

Verification