They have a sidearm on themselves as a SIDEarm. But when they ENGAGE COMAT (for example go into hostile terrirory) they will ALWAYS use a rifle or other weapons BUT NOT pistols.
Engaging combat is one of many situations, but it is definitely not an example of going into hostile territory.
It is a phrase of when shooters act upon or retaliate an opposing force. It is entirely situational.
This means shooting at an enemy. Notice the lack of firearm distinction.
Whatever the definition, when they are going into hostile territory and expect hostile people, they will have their rifles or other guns ready and held, but NOT pistols.
I proved why your statement is a mistake but you backtrack and attempt to change the message.
Ok
If rifles are so good and pistols are never used, why carry them at all?
Already explained in the posts above.
Use the pistol to fight to your o-o-b rifle if ever the case.
They only use side arms when in close range with an enemy and theyâve used all there bullets for there primary weapon
this is First Person Shooter Knowledge 101
Like I said, they never use a pistol when they can use a rifle
Because its a SIDearm. Incase your primary weapon malfunctions you dont want to be left in the danger zone with no way to defend yourself.
I dont understand what you mean. When I said engaging combat I meant preparing for combat as in they are âgetting closeâ to itâŚ
So I dont know why you are sticking to those few words when in any case i meant the same thing
Not gonna lie, I think youâre trying too hard to be correct when in fact youâre doing the opposite.
Engage in combat =/= Preparing for combat
Right now youâre either confusing words for each other, or youâre making entirely wrong definitions for it. Or both.
I have gone on record to show you that that is not always the case. Yes, in the vast majority of cases the ballistics for rifles are better than for handguns. No, rilfes do not always figger bigger and/or faster bullets.
That is the problem. You âtoldâ us quite a lot but have nothing to show for it when we ask you to provide evidence to back up your claims.
Carbines and SMGs in the vast majority of cases. Basically the only role issued with a full length (battle) rilfe is the designated marksman (for obvious reasons).
This sums up 90% of this thread.
Please go to your local range, rent a full size rifle and try hitting multiple shots in quick succession on close range targets, possibly even moving ones if you feel frisky and your range offers it. Then rent literally any (sub) compact pistol and do the same thing again. Then come back to me.
don't click this
So if Iâm reading this correctly your argument for why pistols are better than rifles in close quarters combat weapons is that putting .410 shotshells in a revolver gives it moar dakka? Youâre only getting three pellets of buckshot per shell, and theyâre going to fly off in a doughnut pattern up, down, left, or right the only place you can be sure they wonât go is right where youâre aiming it because youâve got a rifled barrel. But atleast youâve got a whole six chambers with three balls each, now thatâs 18 lead balls going at around 400 meters per second in the general direction of your enemy, and youâve even got a double action so you donât need to cock the hammer. There couldnât possibly be a way that assault rifles could carry anywhere close to 18 projectiles that have equal or better effect on target, and even if rifle bullets were more effective than buckshot or high capacity magazines existed, thereâs no way that they could fire faster or more accurately than a double action revolver.
ShhhhhâŚHe doesnât know that yet.
Heâll never find it now.
When was anyone other than you comparing assault rifles versus battle rifles? In both this thread and the one it was split from the argument was about whether or not an assault rifle (or rifles in general) is better than a pistol, and he eventually did concede that a typical handgun is (or atleast should be in Unturned II) better suited to fill the role of a sidearm than an AR is suited to fill that role.
Why would you recommend subcompact pistols for an inexperienced shooter to learn about how great pistols are? How is having less leverage to keep the muzzle down, less magazine capacity, less surface that the recoil pressing into his hand is spread through, and less space to keep from running into the slide going to give him a better opinion about shooting pistols than if he had used a compact or service sized pistol?
The difference being?
There are only some exceptions when a pistol bullet is bigger then the a rifles bullet, and even when it is it lacks other features.
I have provided you claims, that is just a lie.
That revolvers have rotating chaimbers and pistols have chaimbers that stay in place. They are also loaded differently
So the m1911 isnât a pistol because the chamber end of the barrel pivots up and down to lock and unlock? Seems like youâve arbitrarily narrowed the term to be too specific for any use besides maybe setting up some sort of convoluted competitive shooting ruleset/scoring system or a draconian legal code.