Things we learned from 20man cod4
Moderator: Forum Moderators
-
Dr. kitteny berk
- Morbo

- Posts: 19676
- Joined: December 10th, 2004, 21:53
- Contact:
-
Anhamgrimmar
- Ninja Pirate

- Posts: 1517
- Joined: July 17th, 2005, 13:29
- Location: Saaaarfampton
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'deject wrote:
fuck that shit. give me a M1911 or a USP. .45 is the best combat handgun bullet period.
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!
-
Gunslinger42
- Ninja

- Posts: 1448
- Joined: February 12th, 2005, 17:53
-
deject
- Berk

- Posts: 10353
- Joined: December 7th, 2004, 17:02
- Location: Oklahoma City, OK, USA
- Contact:
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.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!
-
HereComesPete
- Throbbing Cupcake

- Posts: 10249
- Joined: February 17th, 2007, 23:05
- Location: The maleboge
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
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
-
buzzmong
- Weighted Storage Cube

- Posts: 7167
- Joined: February 26th, 2007, 17:26
- Location: Middle England, nearish Cov
And lower recoil -> More thoeretical accuracy when shooting fast, plus they're better training ammunition due to the lighter recoil.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.
.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.
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.
-
Mr. Johnson
- Mr Flibbles

- Posts: 4957
- Joined: August 10th, 2006, 10:58
- Location: belgium
-
deject
- Berk

- Posts: 10353
- Joined: December 7th, 2004, 17:02
- Location: Oklahoma City, OK, USA
- Contact:
only if the enemy cares about their soldiersDog 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.
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)
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)
-
deject
- Berk

- Posts: 10353
- Joined: December 7th, 2004, 17:02
- Location: Oklahoma City, OK, USA
- Contact:
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.
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.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.
Back on tangent; 2v2 COD4 = a 16 kill streak for Pants.




