5punk

also, I think you meant .357, as the only .375 I know of is a high powered rifle cartridge.

Mr. Johnson wrote:Guns

In fairness, the DEagle can come chambered in .357 and .44 (which are far superior carts to .50AE etc.)

deject wrote: .45 is the best combat handgun bullet period.

Truth.

Apart from that handgun which fires .50 BMG, but we won't talk about that.

MrGreen wrote:
Truth.

Apart from that handgun which fires .50 BMG, but we won't talk about that.

because that's not a handgun bullet.

also, it's a single shot hunting cannon, so probably not ideal for combat.

Dr. kitteny berk wrote:
because that's not a handgun bullet.

also, it's a single shot hunting cannon, so probably not ideal for combat.

this

Things we learned from 5 man COD4 tonight.

* It's rather fun
* The Skorpion is unfeasibly accurate
* Bobbins should not be allowed to level

Things I learnt tonight:

If you only need 5 points to level up and the match is seconds away from ending, don't go for the cocky knife kill, someone may hear you coming

deject wrote:
fuck that shit. give me a M1911 or a USP. .45 is the best combat handgun bullet period.

No, 9mm is teh bestest! its even got war in its name! (Parabellum, from the latin phrase 'Si vis Pacem, Para bellum' or 'If you wish peace, prepare for war'

Or if we're including specials, then the .303 howdah pistol is much win!

/NB, i do not assume 9mm PB to be the bestest
/Also: In during /k/ style calibre shitstorm
/also also: 7.65x17mm/ .32 ACP am the bestest calibre for sniping!

I LIKE THE GUNS WHAT DO FIRINGS OF THE METULL

Silencer + UAV jammer + Deadly Silence = They NEVER hear you coming.

.

Anhamgrimmar wrote:
No, 9mm is teh bestest! its even got war in its name! (Parabellum, from the latin phrase 'Si vis Pacem, Para bellum' or 'If you wish peace, prepare for war'

Or if we're including specials, then the .303 howdah pistol is much win!

/NB, i do not assume 9mm PB to be the bestest
/Also: In during /k/ style calibre shitstorm
/also also: 7.65x17mm/ .32 ACP am the bestest calibre for sniping!

9mm's have puny stopping power compared to the .45 ACP. There's a reason the Marines are trying to move back to a .45 pistol. Just about the only advantage 9mm gives you is the ability to hold more rounds in a magazine.

Pffft, merkin marines give our marines a bad name.

Also, 9mm is pissy, apparently it takes on average 16 non-vital shots with 9mm to down an un-armoured man.

The .454 casull was for some time the bestest handgun cartridge around, it was a shitload better than .50ae and almost as good in flight as the .50bmg round because it used a rifle primer in the cartridge, plus it was actually used in magazines. Then smith and wesson made their .460 and then their .500 models, the 500 is the most (commercially available) powerful handgun in the world now, so we should give those to troops. Or we could just give them one of those pistols that shoots 6.5mm grendel rounds

deject wrote:
9mm's have puny stopping power compared to the .45 ACP. There's a reason the Marines are trying to move back to a .45 pistol. Just about the only advantage 9mm gives you is the ability to hold more rounds in a magazine.

And lower recoil -> More thoeretical accuracy when shooting fast, plus they're better training ammunition due to the lighter recoil.

.45ACP does have much better stopping power, although 9mm JHP rather than the FMJ which you're on about is also much more effective against unarmoured targets.

Which is great for coppers/gov' agencies, bad for the mil' as they're not allowed to use JHP in wars.


If you want proper stopping power, you want something like a Webley loaded with .455 British Service rounds. Slow, heavy, made of lead bullets which'll mash up people.

Can we have a 'Gun Wanking' separation thread?

mrbobbins wrote:Can we have a 'Gun Wanking' separation thread?

Although I'm going to have to contribute by saying that on the battlefield it is preferred to wound the enemy than kill them. It's better tactically because it takes out other troops who have to help him, and strategically because an injured soldier can't fight but still needs feeding.

I don't know if this would apply to a handgun though.

i forgot the people on this forum know fuckloads more about guns than i do. so i'm going chicken on this one.

Dog Pants wrote:


Although I'm going to have to contribute by saying that on the battlefield it is preferred to wound the enemy than kill them. It's better tactically because it takes out other troops who have to help him, and strategically because an injured soldier can't fight but still needs feeding.

I don't know if this would apply to a handgun though.

only if the enemy cares about their soldiers

My 2 pence:

Small bullets are designed to injur not kill thus making them far more effective in war as it takes out 3 people instead of just the one you shot (two to carry the injured party away) and sometimes more, Yanks are especially bad for having about fucking 15 of the bastards around a shot yank talking to him like he's going to die and its gonna be ok, jesus this, god that after the stupid fucker has just shot himself in the foot.

Bigger Bullets that are given to the real men are designed to kill and cause panic, this is usually only done by a selected few incredibly sexy men who are amazing shots, well hung, have a very black sense of humour and are what some call sociopaths (after I left the army and went in to education again, a communications lecturer kept calling me that). These are ment for wet work and you know if you've been hit by one that;
A) Someone really wants you Dead
B)There is two really good looking men within 1km of you covered in torn up sand bags and smelling of their own piss.

/2 pence

Edit: oh wait that or they are using guns/ammo sold to them by the brittish army that haven't been in active service since the 80's (SLR, lovely rifle that kicks like fat chick)

This whole "wound not kill" idea is great for fighting other standing armies of in-the-ballpark similarity. Against the threats our armies are facing right now (i.e.: the so called insurgent) you just want to kill the fucker dead, as quickly and efficiently as possible. When we invade Iran (I'd be surprised if it doesn't happen at this point), this doctrine would be more applicable.

Also, it doesn't apply so much to pistols anyways because they're definitely not nearly as lethal as rifles are. Also, in situations where you'd use your sidearm, you're not going to be worried about just trying to wound the enemy, you're probably in deep shit.

deject wrote:Also, it doesn't apply so much to pistols anyways because they're definitely not nearly as lethal as rifles are. Also, in situations where you'd use your sidearm, you're not going to be worried about just trying to wound the enemy, you're probably in deep shit.

This is what I was thinking.

Back on tangent; 2v2 COD4 = a 16 kill streak for Pants.