Imagine complaing about fuddlore and then posting fuddlore. Pistols rely on good hits or fragmentation precielsy because they do not have the raw power to inflict decent wound channels or end a threat through sheer physical traume in most cases. Modern HPs will mess you up, even out of subcompacts.
Aight yeah i’m done, apologies. We’ve gone in circles and got nowhere.
They dont switch to their sidearm when inside a building hallway… and they dont carry an SMG along with a rifle… that would just make them weaker.
I dont understand the part where you are speaking about counter terrorism and the outside… i never mentioned anything related to that.
The last part of the comment where you call a system which a lot of video games use and real life retarded wasnt necessary
I’ll apologize for sure, but “retarded” is a pretty heavily used term on the internet. You shouldn’t get so offended by it so easily. But yes, I got riled up, won’t try to defend that. Just wanted to say for anyone who won’t see it after i edit it out.
Im not offended by it, I just think its a big waste of time. I dont want to keep reading some insults because I cannot respond to that, and it doesnt add to anything, but atleast you didnt try to somehow approve it.
Even a .22 CB could kill you if it hits you in the right place. Hell, even tripping over badly and hitting a rock has killed people. having a wider or deeper wound channel increases the amount of the body that is hit, and therefore statistically increases the odds that something important will be caught in the volume that is hit and subjected to the kind of trauma (with an A not an E) that breaks it. Rifle shots are only more effective because they have more energy to break more stuff, hopefully vital stuff, by penetrating more, expanding more, and causing more to stretch to the point of breaking so hopefully something important will be broken.
That much I can agree on.
Rifles are objectively better than pistols in almost every aspect except for compactness, weight, and close range effectiveness.
Case closed.
1 Like
“Close range effectiveness” is a bit unspecific, so someone will say something like fully automatic rifle fire is always more lethal than a single pistol bullet, and this shit will start all over again.
shhh, don’t give LeMa even more ideas
Its not an idea what rifles are better at close range its a fact
Have you ever heard of a shotgun, my friend?
Okay, back up your fact then. I’ll take nasically anything at this point.
Except we arent talking about shotguns or any other weapons except pistols and rifles
I gave you plenty of points but you chose to ignore them. Bigger bullets, faster bullets, faster fire, more ammunition, more accurate, better range, sturdier grip.
No counter terrorism force uses pistols, but they do use rifles when engaging combat.
Those are your claims, now where are the facts to support them.
Moving goalposts. The point is that rifles are not flat out superior to pistols, especially when we are talking full size battle rifles and CQC.
Yes, more often than not they take carbines or SMGs into CQC. They will literally neevr take full size (battle) rifles into CQC intentioanlly. Yes, they will still use them in CQC if they have them, but they will never intentionally equip full size (battle) rifles for CQC.
Hell most fo the SOF/CTs are not even issued fulls iez rifles, let alone battle rifles.
.45 Long Colt is interchangeable with .410 shotshells. I rest my case.
1 Like
That statement alone tells me you’re not credible.
Pretty sure every modern counter terror force use a pistol.
My city’s SWAT team have pistols with them all the time, along with the rest of their gear. Maybe not only SWAT but, every police and military force ever.
I said when engaging combat. They have pistols as a SIDEARM. Read my comments properly
You are too stubborn to believe that rifles fire bigger bullets and faster? Pretty funny considering you claim to know a lot.
I just told you they are. And yes they will, like I have shown you. And they still dont use pistols but rather rifles!