Is there any real life truth behind revolvers doing more damage than pistols in video games?
>>30259599
>real life truth
Christ, kid. Go ask your dad.
>>30259599
No because real life is not balanced.
>>30259599
I'm games revolvers are typically magnum calibers while auto loaders stick to 9mm and 45acp.
>>30259599
Also in videogames revolvers tend to have a slower rate of fire than automatics. Like weak jabs and heavy punches, the general rubric is slow = powerful, fast = weak.
>>30259599
Magnum cartridges
>>30259716
this
No. A .357 magnum and 9mm are identical in ballistics because they're both pistol calibers and all pistol calibers are identical.
Or so /k/ would say.
>>30259599
shut the ufck up
Holy fuck lurk more summer fags. My 10mil is more powerful than a 357 mag. My 44 mag is more powerful full than my 10mil. This dosent belong here. This belongs on /v/
Revolvers typically use more powerful rounds than semi-auto pistols, especially in video games. Let's say an average vidya semi-auto pistol fires .45 ACP. An average vidya revolver fires .44 magnum, which is notably more powerful.
You probably won't get a more civil answer, so please try to lurk more in the future, /v/ friend.
>>30259599
Assume any knowledge from videogames as outright lies or heavy embellishments of the truth.
It is true. Bullets coming out of revolvers aren't as dizzy because they are used to spinning around in a cylinder, vs. bullets out of a clip which have just been standing in a straight line prior to being fired. Less dizzy bullets hit harder.
>>30259599
Kill yourself nigger
>>30259599
Sort of.
The way revolvers are built makes them naturally tougher than pistols, so they can handle more powerful cartridges. However, that just means the high end cap of revolvers is more powerful, not all (or even most) revolvers are more powerful than pistols. Your most common revolvers are directly comparable to your most common pistols. Furthermore, as we get better and better at making pistols, we are able to make them withstand more and more powerful rounds, so that gap is closing.
>>30259916
>questions about real-life weapon physics belongs in a forum where people are arguing over which CGI characters have the best ass
You seem to be lost yourself. Faggots belong in /lgbt/ .
They can carry higher powered bullets easier due to simpler engineering?
Honestly, the only real advantage revolvers have is that they are reliable and easy to reload.
They can fire more larger cartridges due to their simplicity in design as opposed to pistols
>>30261270
>revolvers
>easy to reload
not as easy as slapping in a fresh mag.
>>30261270
I own a few revolvers and few semiautomatics and find it to be a lot easier to reload semiautomatic handguns, even if you have speedloaders.
>>30259906
/k/ says that about the many smaller service calibers - namely 9mm, .40 S&W and .45 ACP. And that is largely true in the age of hollowpoints - the wound channels from each of these is remarkably similar, meaning that you mostly give up magazine capacity for a small increase in barrier penetration as you move up.
Once you hit .357 magnum, you are out of the pool that is considered similar. The magnum calibers (.357, .44, not technically a "magnum" designation but I'd put 10mm here too, etc) really do have significantly higher muzzle velocity and terminal ballistics. It's why you'd carry a Ruger Alaskan for bear defense instead of a Beretta 92FS.
By the same token /k/ does not claim that the small calibers used in older or pocket-pistol models (.380 auto, .25acp, arguably even .38 special) have the ass of the "big three" calibers.
Short version: lurk moar, man.
>>30259716
And in real life the killing potential difference between a 9x19 and a .500S&W Magnum is basically indistinguishable on humans, much less the difference between the vidya babies of the .45acp and .357 Mag.
>>30261122
/Fit/is much gayer desu
>>30259599
Yes and no. Historically revolvers were chambered in stronger magnum calibers that semi autos were not because it is harder to fit a big bullet in a grip
The second reason, historically, that revolvers were "stronger" is that until the 1970s semi automatics could only reliability shoot "ball" rounds or rounds that have a rounded off tip. Where as revolvers could be used with hollow point rounds, which work as the name implies and expand when contacting flesh creating a bigger hole and dumping more energy in the target.
Today semi autos can shoot hollow points just fine so really the revolvers aren't stronger.
>>30261492
>really do have significantly higher muzzle velocity and terminal ballistics
100fps over .357 Sig for the hottest >100gr .357mag round, and under standard .357 Sig velocities for most .44mag bullets.
>it's why you'd carry a Ruger Alaskan for bear defense
No, you carry it because it has significantly more penetration. Which is wholly unneeded on humans, which are about 1/30th the width of a fucking grizzly bear and have smaller, weaker bones by a large margin.
>>30261509
The difference between .45 and 9mm is very slight.
The difference between .500S&W Magnum and 9mm is not slight.
The difference between .45acp and .357 is not slight.
You're retarded.
>>30260952
This.
In CoD, you can gutshot someone with a Barrett .50 cal and they'll be fine after a minute, in reality, they'd be put down hard and stay down.
>>30261543
>historically
literally all revolver specific magnum calibers are significantly younger than both 9x19 and .45acp.
>.357 Mag invented in 1934
>.44 Mag invented in 1955
>.41 Magnum invented in 1964
>.32 H&R Magnum (which btw is weaker than 9x19) invented in 1982
>.327 Federal Magnum invented in 2007
>>30261552
Only assuming whatever you're shooting is large enough that the bullet doesn't pass clean through without actually expanding, such as the case with the majority of .41mag and larger hollowpoints.
And let me refer you to the literally hundreds of thousands of people shot with .357mag over the last 80 years that were fine.
>>30261577
Then go ahead and refer them to me.
.357>.45super>9mm>.45acp
>>30261565
>Younger than 9x19
>>30261594
>memes, lies, and hot opinions based solely on wishes and unicorn farts
![4601fae15612a021c28444d20591e2ef1455318499_full[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/UZGTqzM.jpg "4601fae15612a021c28444d20591e2ef1455318499_full[1].jpg")
>>30261565
>Younger than .45 ACP
>>30261599
>invented in 1901
yes
>>30261614
Got it backwards even as I was typing it.
>>30261565
What I mean by that is that today you do have rounds like 10mm and .357 sig as well as semi autos that fire rimmed .357 and .44.
From 1934 until the late 70s-early 80s it was hollow point .357 competing with ball 9mm or ball .45
.357 hollow points will leave a bigger wound cavity and dump more energy into a target than 9mm ball will.
People who made videogames in the late 90s early 2000s were kids watching media when it was .357 hollow points competing with 9mm ball and .45 ball. So they came away understanding that muh hollow points = muh damage and from there the trope stuck
Same way >bolt actions rifled do more damage than assault rifles because of the typically larger cartridges allowed by the action of the bolt vs a semi auto and then video game makers just applied this to all guns
>>30261548
Hmm, well, you do have a point about a lot of that "oomph" being wasted on humans, unless they're behind a solid barrier or are wearing a soft vest or what have you. But you're still moving the goal posts. I was replying to the assertion that "All pistol calibers are identical", or more precisely, that /k/ commonly says as much. Neither of which is true.
>>30261604
>He thinks .357 is a meme and 9mm is better
Summer/k/amp, everyone
>>30261634
And yet a hollowpoint 9x19 will leave a wound channel in a human that's virtually indistinguishable from a hollowpoint .357mag, and 99.5ish% similar to the wound channel left by a hollowpoint .460 S&W ultramag.
>>30261639
It's an oversimplification, but basically true. You gain no appreciable killing potential (against humans) going from a 9mm to a .500mag as the wound channels will be very similar within the relatively small span that is a human torso. Yes, there are niche or very rare exceptions to this (IIA soft armor, intermediate barriers that aren't car doors/windshields/interior doors) but as a general statement it's true. And in the context of video games where those niche purposes and rare exceptions that could happen IRL simply cannot happen...
>>30261667
Do me a favor and google remote wounding. If you think a 9mm and a .500 Mag do the same amount of damage to a naked human body you don't understand physics. By that logic a 5.56 and a .22 should do the same amount of damage.
>>30261509
remember it "makes sense" when you consider most game characters are heavily armored
case in point FMJ does more damage in call of duty since most of the actors are cign or swat or whatever wearing plate carriers
once you can remember that, game guns make a "little" more sense
>>30261691
I think you need to go to summer /k/amp if you think any pistol caliber, revolver ultramag or otherwise (or any rifle caliber with an impact velocity under about 2800fps) is capable of "remote wounding" AKA hydrostatic shock.
Pic related. it's been scientifically debunked literally hundreds of times since the 70's.
>>30261667
First of all you are a retard
Second, it doesn't even need to be true to be the explanation. It is a video game based on TV shows and film that are based on Fudd lore.
It starts with a little bit of truth, .357 hollow point has more energy and dumps more energy into a target than 9mm ball then it becomes fudd lore then it becomes in media then video games make it so revolvers do more damage
>>30261708
It would actually make *less* sense since that would imply both the magnum and the regular pistols are both shooting FMJ, and any round of either caliber that makes it through the armor will then make it clear through the person in the armor without doing anything other than leaving a caliber-diameter hole.
Which would mean a .357mag and a 9x19 would leave identical wound channels, since they're both 9mm in diameter. Or that a .500mag and a 9mm would only differ by 0.144" in diameter of the wound channel.
>>30261726
"Is there any real life truth to vidya wounding"
The answer is no, you've moved the goalposts so far you're not even playing the same game, and you're just being an argumentative ass at this point.
>>30259599
It's true for large animals. I'd trust my .44 Magnum lever gun to put down a black bear. Not so a Hi Point carbine.
>>30261715
>hydrostatic shock
Human autopsy results have demonstrated brain hemorrhaging from fatal hits to the chest, including cases with handgun bullets.[4] Thirty-three cases of fatal penetrating chest wounds by a single bullet were selected from a much larger set by excluding all other traumatic factors, including past history.
In such meticulously selected cases brain tissue was examined histologically; samples were taken from brain hemispheres, basal ganglia, the pons, the oblongate and from the cerebellum. Cufflike pattern haemorrhages around small brain vessels were found in all specimens. These haemorrhages are caused by sudden changes of the intravascular blood pressure as a result of a compression of intrathoracic great vessels by a shock wave caused by a penetrating bullet.
—J. Krajsa[5]
It has often been asserted that hydrostatic shock and other descriptions of remote wounding effects are nothing but myths. Correspondence in the journal, Neurosurgery, reviews the published evidence and concludes that the phenomenon is well-established.
A myth is an assertion which has either been disproven by careful experiment or for which there is no historical or scientific evidence in cases where it is reasonably expected. Belief in remote effects of penetrating projectiles may have originated with hunters and soldiers, but their reality is now well established in a broad body of scientific literature...
>>30261715
You are absolutely retarded if you think a .500 Mag isn't capable of inducing hydrostatic shock. Absolutely science-denying retarded.
