Would a sword ever do as much damage as a bullet? I mean, bullets do a lot of damage.
I've heard you can die from swords.
There's a whole lot of shit that's bulletproof. Never heard of anything being swordproof, though.
>>43835332
Breastplate.
Hell, most hard, rounded armors are far more swordproof than modern body armor is against bullets.
>>43835364
That's great for your breasts, but there's also the rest of you that needs swordproofing.
>>43835404
So then use full plate, or your plate might have skirts or whatever. Like, you don't need to cover the entire body. While some douche is maneuvering into position to somehow can-opener your armor, or stab into a super-thin(and often protected) joint, you can just hit him upside the head with a heavy-ass metal club.
>>43835364
i think breats is a pretty cool guy, eh doges bulletts and doesn't afraid of anything
>>43835264
Swords can do more damage than a bullet, depending on where you get hit and how deep, and they can be more or less deadly depending on what kind of medical equipment you have on hand.
>>43835264
>metal_gear_rising.gif
>>43835264
Which comic is that from?
>>43835264
I'm going to be diplomatic and say it depends on the bullet and the sword.
>>43835264
You can survive being shot multiple times, never heard of a guy surviving getting impaled or dismembered multiple times.
>>43835264
Swords do more damage. There was a reason Cavalry liked swords.
The problem isn't that bullets do more damage, it's that they do 'enough' damage.
>>43835560
Hey, Brett, I heard you were great at dodging bullets!
Bullets can't decapitate. Not without a fuckton of bullets anyways.
>>43835364
Mordhau. A sword also has a pommel.
Unless you have some sort of faggy Katana or something.
>>43835723
Pretty sure the impaling thing happened multiple times and people survived. That's why you're supposed to twist as you pull out.
Also, honourable mention to triangle blades, so fucking deadly they're banned by the Geneva convention.
It depends entirely on the bullet or sword in question, and how you are hit with it.
Swords work by either stabbing a large chunk of metal deep into a person or slashing a long, deep cut. They can affect either a small or wide surface area (wider is usually ideal) and can disembowel a target with a good strike. However, it takes a lot more force to inflict a lethal wound, but even a grazing strike can be lethal, and the weapon has a large surface area to inflict that strike. This isn't even accounting for the fact that larger and deeper wounds are much more prone to infection, and cause greater blood loss.
Bullets work by putting a whole lot of force into a very small surface area. This means they often penetrate quite deeply into a person, and can even exit the target. However, this means that if you don't hit a vital part, you're not really going to do much more than cause him serious pain (which is good, but can sometimes jut enrage a target and make him even tougher to kill in the process).
TL;DR swords actually do more damage than a normal bullet.
Also,
>given sword that can cut through goddamn anything and is a revered artifact in its own right that few people in the galaxy ever get to see, let alone hold
>complaining
Typical Solo.
>>43835264
Aren't lightsabers notoriously difficult to use without cutting yourself into smoking chunks of meat unless you have the ability to tap into the force?
>>43835723
People get dismembered all the time.
whatisanamputee.biz
>>43835783
>Bullets can't decapitate.
You're just not using enough gun, anon.
>>43835264
Have you ever been cut by a knife?
I'm talking a decent wound. It fucking hurts like Christ almighty has spit brimstone on your wound
Imagine being impaled by what is basically a two handed thin giant knife
>>43835891
This
So /tg/, what's your round of choice?
Mine's the .44 magnum
>>43835891
>no .950 JDJ
>>43835930
>.44 magnum
>meme boolits
>>43835930
.357 and .44 are good rounds, but it's impossible to shoot them out of a comfortable autoloader.
Not saying there's anything wrong with revolvers, granted, but most people are bad shots, and that 17+1 .45 magazine really goes the distance on some of this new polymer shit.
>>43835456
What if both parties have full plate and clubs?
>>43835955
This. Now for my favorite rifle round, it's got to be 7.62x51 NATO, or how you Mericans call it .308
God bless the HK41 and all G3 descendants
>>43835264
I think it depends on placement, but in general I think you can be more sure that someone is dead if you cut their head off than if you shoot them in the head. People do occasionally survive the latter.
Against unarmoured foes, a sword slash will have a good chance of opening up a major artery anywhere you cut, which is generally lethal. A sword thrust in the chest will cause damage to the chest which has a decent chance of being lethal.
Getting shot in the chest has a good chance at being instantly lethal while getting shot in the limbs may or may not open up an artery.
Causes of death are major organs failing such as heart, lungs or brain, or bleeding out. Swords can make you do either, bullets tend to only do the first (depending on bullet size)
Swords can be pretty lethal.
>>43835962
Then it isnt a matter of being swordproof, its a matter of being club proof
>>43835850
Actually the Hague convention, but yes.
>>43836317
Then what do we have that's clubproof?
>>43836421
Riot Armor.
It's not swordproof though.
>>43835930
Bolter rounds, for their great stopping power.
>>43835264
In real life knife wounds are far more deadly then bullets wounds from typical handguns.
>>43835264
Swords nearly always do more damage than bullets. You can lop someone's arm off with a sword, for instance -- harder to do so with a bullet.
They just get blocked easier. That's totally unrelated to damage.
>>43836438
round and round and round it goes...
>>43835865
As of current canon, not really. They can't do the super fancy moves or deflect blasters, but anyone halfway competent can do basic swings without hacking off their own limbs.
>>43835896
But have you also been shot? If not, how can you compare the sensation?
>>43835930
Black Talon.
>>43835264
It depends.
If you're talking about living things, there's not much difference in the damage caused by getting hit in the head with a sword or a bullet.
If you're talking about shit like buildings, the bullet is probably going to win out.
If you launch a sword at 1,100 f/s at something, it will certainly cause more damage than pretty much any bullet that has less mass than a sword. This is why we invented artillery and rail-guns--so we can launch sword sized things or bigger at shit at high velocities.
>>43836905
I want to find someone whose been stabbed sided and shot various ways and get their opinions. Also, inquire as to their poor life choices.
>>43835264
Actually bullets do not do that much damage, the problem isn't really the size of the wound but how deep it goes and the trouble to remove the bullet later
A dagger is just as effective at killing somebody as an axe if you stab the torso.
>>43835930
.50 MG. I don't want them to get back up.
>>43837333
*sliced, not sided
Damn phone
>>43835264
>han says "I'd settle for a good blaster."
ya know, i think his character has already been pretty well-established by this point
>>43837333
>poor life choices
I don't know, man, they sound like Daredevil or something.
>>43835955
comfy automatic .357s exist, and with modern powders you can cram .44 Magnum power into a .45ACP sized cartridge— .460 Rowland does this, but needs a reinforced pistol with a solid compensator to not shake the whole gun apart because magnum.
>>43837529
>Daredevil
More like Rasputin.
>>43835364
Thats great for slicing swords, but wont stop a sharp piercing sword.
>>43835864
Uh no, swords are very much less lethal than bullets. Mainly because you can block them with your limbs, and it takes a while to kill somebody with a sword, and they can still fight even if you run them through.
7.62x49mm meanwhile puts a motherfucker on the ground with one hit to the center of mass.
>>43837566
>If you don't hit a man in the vitals with a sword, he doesn't die!
>But if you do hit a man in the vitals with a bullet, he does die!
Well, you've certainly convinced me.
>>43837547
You'd have a hell of a time trying to put a sword through a breastplate
>>43835891
>not enough gun
More like
Not enough dakka
>>43835264
>Would a sword ever do as much damage as a bullet?
That's like asking if a truck can be faster than a car. There are so many variables and interpretations that the question is meaningless.
>>43835264
Depends on the sword, on the armor, on the caliber of the bullet, on the gun...
It depends on so many things, it makes your thread irrelevant, OP.
>>43835930
.45-70 gov. I love my lever gun. So much fun to shoot, and great to hunt with.
>>43835264
Considering the wide lattitude you can have with both mediums, yes.
Since you asking about damage, and not anything else, I can say most assuredly.
If you want to know which, at there 'max potential' could do more, prolly a bullet, depending on certain parameters like how utterly unrealistic you'd allow the sword to be. Otherwise, It'd prolly be about the same.
>>43835864
>person who doesn't understand hollowpoints
>>43837566
Leathality was not the question. Damage was.
>>43836551
Aren't bolter rounds technically rockets?
>>43837715
They are bullets and also rockets, since plain rockets start off so slow you could plug the barrel with your bare finger.
>>43837664
I know I kinda do, isn't that like... not a typical bullet? Like I know it's used, but not super common right?
Like I don't hear that point brought up on social media sites, or shows, or much at all for that matter.
With the exception of a few games, and in those, they seem to be alternative ammo types.
>>43835891
>>43837750
>>43837738
>but not super common right?
Hollowpoints are bog standard self defence rounds, bruh. Common as dirt for civillian and police shooters.
If you're thinking about military themed shows and games, well, there's this little thing called the Hague convention.
>>43837290
>If you launch a sword at 1,100 f/s at something, it will certainly cause more damage than pretty much any bullet that has less mass than a sword. This is why we invented artillery and rail-guns--so we can launch sword sized things or bigger at shit at high velocities.
This is the greatest thing I've read all day
>>43835264
A sword can do more than a bullet.
If you fire it out of a barrel.
>>43837760
...cool I guess?
Google get me nowhere on "bog standard self defence rounds"
and while I've done Fallout and a fair share of CSI-kinda shows, I've never heard of the Hague convention, so this means all of potato to me.
>>43837760
>Hague convention
The Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Inter-Country Adoption (Hague Adoption Convention) is an international agreement to establish safeguards to ensure that intercountry adoptions take place in the best interests of the child.
damage depends on both the sword and the bullet. Lets just say you have a 9mm handgun bullet, and a regular longsword.
The sword has a few modes of attacking. you can slash at people, or stab. theoretically, slashing at someone without any armor, just across the midsection, you'd cut open their fleshbag and spill out the mushy mushy bits. almost certain death. A 9mm however, entirely depends on accuracy for death. Lets say, you swing a sword at someone 100 times.at least 90 would be lethal with the rest being debilitating. A bullet however, shot 100 times into a torso, you have maybe 5-10% hits to the heart which are always lethal. 30-40% into the lungs which would be usually lethal. and the rest into the fleshbag which would be occasionally lethal. This is of course ignoring armor, and places other than the torso. Still, however, with just basic weapons and a controlled attack, swords would do more damage.
>>43837808
Why the fuck would you fire it out of a barrel? I'm pretty sure that would be damn inaccurate. Try swinging it.
>>43837760
Not much of a gunsperg but iirc it's because they flatten when they impact anything of note?
So they don't penetrate far if you shoot them inside a house but it also means they are hell on the medic trying to treat them?
>>43837815
There's more than one Hague convention
>>43837829
That's on the poster to specify that shit.
>>43837823
Yhea, That's what I remember, that they shatter as well so that it maximizes damage on soft fleshy targets.
>>43837838
pretty easy to discern that he's not talking about the adoption one when discussing hollowpoints
>>43837566
You can kill someone instantly with both. You can also wound someone a dozen times with both and not kill them. And people have still kept fighting with lethal wounds from both. What is your point.
>>43837584
Its outright impossible for all practical purposes. swords only defeat plate by stabbing through the gaps with a reinforced point.
>>43837853
That's literally all google comes back with when I ask "Hague convention"
Maybe That poster was retarded or misspelled it. I shouldn't have to be bothered to fix someone else's mistakes.
>>43837810
The Hague convention is what people mean when they say Geneva convention about half of the time, it sets out a lot of the rules for legal warfare and defines quite a few war crimes— one such rule is that proper armies are not allowed to use hollowpoints.
>>43837815
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Conventions_of_1899_and_1907
THE Hague convention, lrn2context.
>>43837823
houses are made of drywall, a hollowpoint is still going to go right through. the point of a hollowpoint is that it slows down somewhat inside you and imparts more of its energy rather than just passing through neatly.
>>43837844
shattering happens but it's not desirable, hollowpoints are generally designed to try and prevent it.
that whole "explodes into a thousand razorblades" thing was public misconception brought about by poor marketing for the infamous Black Talon bullet.
Incidentally, Black Talons are still in production and use, but there's no more outcry because they're called Ranger SXTs now.
>>43837866
Third result was wikipedia telling me the different ones
>>43837867
Ahh thank you.
>>43837866
Google's results are altered by your browsing habits, dingus.
Perhaps if you knew how to internet you might specify 'hague convention hollowpoint' to guide your results, but you are too busy being a dumb asshole.
>>43835264
Under the right circumstances, stairs would be more lethal than a bullet. Context is everything, and this thread is garbage.
>>43835264
Irrelevant. The end result is the same.
>>43835332
Concrete.
There is two types of damage values that matters here: the volume of body that is randomised by the attack, and lethality of attacks.
A sword imparts energy into a body over its length. A slashing attack will randomise a segment of one's body hit. A thrust will randomise one small channel wound.
A bullet will cause cavitation effects and cause a potentially larger channel wound than a sword, as the energy deposited into the body is channeled outwards.
Leathalness has been discussed.
Unless severed limbs count as full volume lost, the bullets cause more damage per volume. Unless they're handgun bullets or something.
You need to throw a bullet a lot harder than you need to swing a sword to make to make a hole of equal size.
The advantage of bullets is that you've got a crazy powerful machine that does the throwing for you.
>>43837758
I-Is this shit real?
WHY WOULD YOU NEED A GUN THAT BIG?
Elephant hunting?
Anti-tank weapon?
Compensation for a small penis?
Someone tell me, please.
>>43838176
Novelty shooting at very, very long ranges apparently.
>>43838176
Google says it's a bunch of nerds on a long-distance shooting forum scratch building a gun for 3-5km target shooting.
>>43837333
They're in all likelihood pretty comparable in pain. If they don't kill you in either case you probably have significant deep and/or wide wounds and that shit is just going to hurt a lot regardless of which particular weapon did the damage.
>>43837722
They're pretty much miniature versions of rocket assisted rounds use by artillery IRL.
>>43835264
Why the fuck can they use lightsabers.
Why is this allowed
>>43835667
Star Wars #12.
>>43835865
Han admits in the comic that he's having an issue not cutting himself.
>>43838598
Because theres no reason they couldn't or shouldn't be.
>>43838598
So, they're on a rescue mission to save Luke, who got captured on Nar Shaddaa by this Hutt who wanted him for his arena and trophy collection.
Just before Han, Leia, and Chewie got there, like, while they were in the building itself but not in the arena proper where the Imperials and Luke were, the Hutt sets off an EMP that disables all the blasters.
R2 somehow escaped the effects of the EMP, probably due to the fact that he was in a storehouse/bunker thing full of Jedi artifacts including holocrons, lightsabers, even a Jedi starfighter and Jedi Temple Guard armor. R2 grabbed the lightsabers, brought them up to the rebels, and they started going to town. Chewie dual-wields.
Leia says she's having a little trouble with the lightsaber, Han outright admits he's having a hard time not injuring himself with it.
>>43838598
Because Artoo is a little shit that thought it'd be cooler than smuggling guns.
>>43836784
It is actually quite difficult to lop someone's limbs off with a sword, or any weapon for that matter - especially without blunting your blade on his bones. The guillotine was invented for a reason, and had an 80kg blade for a reason.
Not that you need to sever a limb to kill someone.
>>43837532
>rimmed cartriges in a magazine
ISHYGDDT
>>43835264
Swords can decapitate people. So I would have to say yes, under the right circumstances.
>>43838702
I disagree
>>43838839
>Swords can decapitate people.
A standing opponent, trying to fight back? In one strike? Good luck.Guns can also decapitate people
Guns aren't all the same. Pistols, shotguns, and antique rifles fire at low velocity, so they basically crush only tissue in their path.
Hollowpoints are nothing special, they just make the wound tunnel a little bigger.
Modern rifles fire at >2500 fps, and that creates swingy effects. Bones shatter, the shockwave stretches organs (some stretch easily and thus aren't hurt much, some poorly, so they tear and hemorrhage), and many bullet designs will fragment into a blizzard of shrapnel flakes.
There are three ways to stop people easily: the CNS, the circulatory system, and the musculoskeletal system.
Swords [knives really] are competitive with low-energy firearms because they slash. Low energy firearms really only target the first two parts, but slashing weapons can cause fast circulatory and muscular damage easier than stabbing.
However, low-energy guns allow targeting the CNS directly at range, and this is the fastest method.
Then high-velocity guns come in and have genuinely different damage mechanisms that keep the same high crit chance but also boost the baseline damage.
>>43836905
Going by the recent event in France, some people who got shot described it as having a firework (or explosive, I don't remember the exact term used) exploding inside your body.
>>43837566
> 7.62x49mm
What the fuck??
>>43837816
This is the most autistic katana shilling shit I've ever read. I'd like to see you take on a school shooter with your glorious Nipponese steel, the call me up from Hell so I can laugh my ass off at you.
>>43835332
There's a lot of shit that's swordproof. Most shit that's "bulletproof" (a misnomer, you can't make anything bulletproof, only bullet resistant) would also be swordproof, with the exception of things like ballistic fiber, and then only against stabbing attacks.
It's just that people never call anything swordproof, because no one uses swords anymore so it wouldn't exactly be a selling point. Unlike being bulletproof, which IS a selling point.
>>43838635
Depending on source, lightsabers are either too easy to wield carelessly due to having little or no weight or momentum effect or are difficult to push around because the blade creates more inertia than even a solid blade would. The latter option seems to have faded out, leaving a melee weapon with no real feedback about blade position. As anyone who has fooled with a whip, flail, or chuks can tell you, lack of location awareness about the business end of a weapon is the first step toward an ER visit.
>>43836551
>Bolter Rounds
Good luck with your fucking gyrojets.
>>43836905
it would be fairly difficult, considering the variety of things that can cut and be shot into people.
>>43837816
Gut shots are very often lethal without immediate attention, and even then surgery to fix one is almost as dangerous as the shot itself.
You don't want metal shit in your stomach anon.
>>43838832
>What is the Lee-Enfield
>What is the Desert Eagle
>What is the Mosin-Nagant
>>43839357
This really isn't true. Most pliable ballistic vests fare very poorly against blades. That's why corrections officers wear knife vests instead.
>>43841806
they're much better than gyrojets, even if completely fictional
>>43841922
Meant autoloaders. Two of those aren't autoloaders. The other is a heavy penis compensation device.
>>43837596
>Dakka
>Not BRRRRRRT
Top pleb
>>43837340
No, the problem is the shockwave caused by the bullet and the bullet tumbling once it penetrates, thus creating a bigger hole once in the inside. "Removing the bullet" is not an issue since it's something that should basically never be done.
>>43838176
Anti-everything
>>43838176
If you really need to say "Fuck Your Shit" to something a long way away.
>>43842111
The evidence suggests that temporary wound cavities don't matter much. Permanent cavity is more relavent.
>>43842111
Field medics shouldn't remove the bullet. Surgeons usually should, though not necessarily right away.
>>43841719
>As anyone who has fooled with a whip, flail, or chuks can tell you, lack of location awareness about the business end of a weapon is the first step toward an ER visit
I suspect that has more do do with the flexible nature of the weapon than the lacck of feedback. A lightsaber being rigid means your inherent awareness of where you hand is will let you know where the blade is.
>>43842246
Eevn surgeons only bother if its ended up near something important.
Otherwise they just leave it. The risk of infection and further damage from the kind of surgery to remove it is going to do more damage than an inert sterile peice of metal left inside would.
>>43841971
They're perfectly fine vs slashing; picks and stabbing attacks are the problem. Hence knife vests, with thin metal inserts or simply much tighter wound aramids.
Hard armor ofc is completely impervious to cutting tools.
>>43842226
Temporary wound cavities don't matter in general, but they do matter in some cases. The liver stretches poorly and tears, for example, and head wounds that might be survivable from a pistol liquefy the brain when it's a highvelocity rifle.
Pic related. There's often no single bullet to remove.
>>43835850
One thing the french got over the germans during WW1.
We were wearing some red pants and getting chopped up by machineguns, but hey, at least we had nice bayonnets.
>>43835891
Now, I've got a question for all the /k/ here.
My cousin in the navy told me that the 12.7x99, number 56, basically "cuts a man in six" I know it's a hyperbole, but is it that powerful?
As in, do some "regular" guns, a.k.a ones you can see in the hands of standard soldiers can do that mich damage to the human body?
How do the guys even recognise the bits and pieces after firing a salvo on talibans and the likes?
>>43836004
Is it the HK.41 or the G36 that has transparent mags? Can't remember
>>43845615
Utter bullshit
>>43839357
The Sea is bulletproof.
>>43838702
Fuck, didn't know the blade waw THAT heavy.
It kinda makes sense though.
>>43845346
If it hit a part of the body deep enough to not have an exit wound then it's almost always next to something important. Hence "usually".
>>43845615
Unless you're firing something filled with monofilament wires, I doubt that'd happen, short of a 50cal. Handheld guns though...
>>43845453
You're replying to me for both. I mostly agree.
It's not completely impervious and most swords are more than good enough at stabbing to penetrate your typical police ballistic vest.
More pieces means higher probability that a piece is too close to something important and mush be removed.
>>43835264
What's that from? I swear I've read it...
>>43845346
Is not the metal going to infect the body or something afterwards?
I mean, bullets are not the cleanest shit in the worlds and seeing as how you can get an infection from loads of things, I'd expect a bullet left in a body to be quite dangerous on that matter.
>>43845677
Heat from firing makes it cleaner than you might think but it's definitely still an infection risk.
>>43845677
Antibiotics are a big thing post-1920s or so.
>>43845701
>MRSA isn't real
That guy in the white panel van definitely just wants to give you candy too.
>>43845725
You're right. Doctors leave bullets in people all the time because it's the optimal MRSA vector for their plague gods.
>>43835891
Now we load all these into one super gun that can fire all the bullets simultaneously.
>>43835930
Gotta go with the .44.
Say what you want about autoloading, the revolver is the most elegant innovation weapons technology has ever seen. If you need more than six bullets, you fucked up bad anyway.
>>43837821
>>43837808
No anon, the sword IS the barrel.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OU96za6czU
>>43845773
In fights where only one side gets off a shot, capacity doesn't matter.
In fights where both sides are shooting, capacity is the single most influential factor in determining the winner.
/IRL
>>43845677
The heat from firing pretty much makes them sterile and being a smooth hard surface they're easy enough for your immune system to clean up if anything does manage too survive. For the most part there's more infection risk from any surgery too remove a bullet than from the bullet itself. Even lead bullets aren't a problem because metallic lead isn't soluble enough in water to actually make it into your system.
>>43845888
Nice trips. Also, what about the little microscopic shards that break off on entry? Would they cause any kind of internal damage or infection, or did I just sort of make that up?
>>43845933
If you smeared your bullets with shit like the Vietcong used to do, yes.
>>43838304
There should be more zanbato guns like that.
Weapons made just to show off how big a weapon you can make.
>>43838832
>rimmed cartriges in a magazine
Dont mind me, just the best bolt rifle of both world wars coming through
>>43845773
>If you need more than six bullets, you fucked up bad anyway.
No, THEY fucked up bad if youre the one bringing several 30 round mags to the fight.
>>43845933
Aside from causing an initially worse wound shards of bullet generally aren't going to be worse than a whole bullet. Shrapnel and shot is actually the stuff most often left in people because it would require even more invasive surgery while the risk of leaving them in is generally no higher.
>>43838176
I need it to protect my family
>>43835316
Underrated post
>>43845767
>>43846214
how much more 90s can they go?
>>43839317
Woops, I meant 7.62x54.mm. Was mixing up my AK's digits with my Mosins.
>>43845615
Guns do a shit load of damage to the body, but no, they don't make people explode. Unless they're the cool guns.
But an M4, especially if you're using green tipped ammo, is more likely to just leave a hole in someone then anything else. The entry wound sometimes doesn't even look that bad, really. Exit wounds are always worse though.
>>43846864
>Unless they're the cool guns.
What sort of cool gun does that?
>>43846954
Mk.19 doesn't tend to leave anything more than a mess if you get a direct hit with a burst.
>>43846954
The Maian Phoenix has explosive ammo. Not necessarily useful, but it sounds cool.
>>43846754
This much 90s.
>>43845760
>Everything is obviously determined by a single factor and MRSA is the only only antibiotic resistant bacteria.
>>43845854
That's why I carry a .45 with a 13 round capacity.
>>43846864
>M4
>more damage than an M16 with a longer barrel
>>43837715
Gyroguns. Not as good as people think they would be, putting more velocity on a similar sized bullet will do significantly more damage.
>>43847719
I made zero comparisons of an M4 vs an M16. I only ever shot an M4, I only have first hand knowledge of the kind of wounds M4s leave.
I could give a shit which one does more damage, that shit doesn't mean anything. It sure as shit isn't enough of a difference to truly matter in a firefight.
>>43845944
Or dip them in cyanide.
>>43845986
>You)
>>43842009
>>43848059
>anything else doesn't include M16s, let alone larger caliber rifles
Yeah, okay
>>43848123
Anything else as in some other kind of wound, asshole. Not some other kind of weapon.
In terms of physical damage, any bladed weapon causes more tissue trauma than a bullet, unless the bullet is explosive or incendiary.
Bullets are designed nowadays (with some exceptions of course) to incapacitate the target. They certainly can kill but they are much better at causing injury.
A blade is designed to FUCKING KILL SOMEONE BITCH. IT ISN'T HERE TO FUCK AROUND AND INJURE, ITS COMING FOR YOUR FUCKING LIMB. BITCH IT'S GOING TO EAT YOUR FACE AND CHOP YOUR HEAD OFF.
FUCK, WHY DO YOU THINK WE USED BLADES FOR SO LONG!? OUR WARFARE IS PATHETIC, LOOK AT THE DEATHS IN PAST WARFARE, AS GUNS CAME ON THE BOARD PEOPLE DIED LESS. THE TOUGH, RUGGED MOTHERFUCKERS IN THE PAST WALKED OUT DEALING WITH CRAZED FUCKERS WITH HUGE MURDERDILDOS WITH THEIR OWN HUGE MURDERDILDOS HOPING THEY WOULDN'T CATCH ONE IN THE FACE.
That's just my observation as a scientist.
>>43838176
It's not called the bill of needs, faggot.
>>43848597
Swords burned down my village, raped my family and carried away my possessions.
>this thread
>>43837664
I was assuming that we weren't taking specialized ammunition into the equation, otherwise bullets win by default because some of them can set you on fire.
>>43835932
We're talking firearms, not man-portable field artillery.
>not using your fists
Pussies.
>>43849852
>hollowpoints
>specialized
They're practically the standard if you aren't in the military
Also
>implying swords can't set you on fire
>>43835864
>Typical Solo.
No shit the reason why only force users used them is because you need the force to make sure you don't cut yourself with your own blade
>>43835865
No.
>>43851981
You don't hit yourself with the blade when using a sword, though. The same would be true of a lightsaber.
>>43837333
Go to Kurdistan and ask locals until you find somebody, Anon. I'm sure there are multiple stab-and-gunshot wound victims 'round those parts.
>>43837547
>most hard, rounded armors
It's kinda hard to stab a round object.
>>43835891
You can bisect a human being firing a full auto 5.56.
>>43851981
>>43852067
Keeping track of a blade with weight is a lot easier than keeping track of a flashlight beam, but its not like non-force users are invariably going to fuck up and decapitate themselves especially if they actually have melee training. There's several examples of non-force sensitives using them and doing relatively well.
>>43835264
The thing is, bullets have a lot more penetration and power behind them. However, a sword will fuck you up proper if it connects with your soft, squishy human flesh in a way that no bullet ever can.
Bullets just tend to go through armour a lot better than swords and have that thing called range and ease of use.
>>43842009
What the fuck are you calling autoloaders?
>>43837823
Militaries, at least the one I was in, wouldn't use hollow-points in combat. You want the bullet to penetrate, to hit multiple targets or punch through light vehicles. Afaik police use hollow points so that any gunshots stop on the intende target and don't injure potential bytanders.
A bullet to the chest is gonna put a motherfucker down, hollowpoint or not. Ideally, you wanna aim for the gut, though. Hurts more, makes the victi make a lot more noise and also drains resources because of evacuation and medical supplies, not to speak of the morale damage of having your squadmate bleed shit and scream.
>>43848597
Spoilered for graphic wound.
Guns only "poke holes" under a certain velocity, usually about 2500 fps. This is why there are vastly different reports about the effectiveness of 5.56. The bullet stays above 2500-2700 fps out to about 200-300 meters, and then falls under that.
Hence, close up, it causes grievous wounds unless there's so little tissue it doesn't have time to fragment, while at very long ranges, it only makes icepick holes. At the right velocity, it not only shatters the bullet, the shockwave sends shards of shattered bone radially out for an inch or two.
>>43853724
So we need faster, small bullets for handguns?
>>43835264
Gurps can answer that.
The answer is...
Yes.
It's easier with the possibly overly generous melee rules which still aren't terribly unrealistic, although you can with the optional rules one of the sometime writers Cole did even more.
Even with his neutering of damage a bit, A big sword wielded by a big man will be doing final damage that equals or exceeds small pistol calibers, and especially armor piercing rounds. It will be garbage at penetrating compared to even a .22 lr round, but the damage will be nothing to sneeze at. Where melee potentially shines again is when the DR is split DR, and has much less versus basically, melee attacks. (Again, this assumes his rules, which beat thrusting damage over the head with a stick, but help it up again by giving a lot more weapons an armor divisor to compensate for the fact you might only be doing 1d3 damage. Not all thrusting weapons, but definitely spears, and stilletos and estoc type things. Even with that standard small knives and daggers are shit against real armor though. They will do tolerably well against buff coats and leather jackets though.)
Even more than that, many creatures with unusual body types, are sometimes best approached with melee, as gunfire simply isn't very effective. So zombies, and some robots, and possibly things with woody bodies. You can sidestep the "my damage is getting fucked" issue by using an elephant gun or AT rifle, though. Of course, for most people, applying axe or machete to zombie will work better. And especially for pc's with extensive melee skills. They go so far as to suggest one alternate world where they basically ate most of the people in the time of Da Vinci, the King of England especially but also other nobles and kings enjoy suiting up in plate, and going zombie hunting. A boar in a boar hunt has way better odds. Zombie bite < < < < plate armor.
>>43853803
No. That's been tried with PDWs like the P90 or MP7, and it can pierce soft armor that most pistols can't; but cartridges that size and barrels that short simply can't push bullets fast enough to have the wounding effects of a rifle.
Since no handgun can do that, the response is giving up on speed to focus on wider bullets to poke wider holes - that's what hollowpoints are for.
Back in the day, people liked handgun cartridges that started off wide because hollowpoints weren't reliable yet. Now (read: post-1980s) that hollowpoints have satisfied the width component, the next factor is magazine capacity to poke more holes, so people have moved to calibers that can fit as many adequately wide hollowpoints in a magazine as possible.
