|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Aug 08, 2010 8:44 pm
So, I was thinking, if you used an overpowered gun in a fire fight, like a 44. magnum, it would definitely have a significant intimidation factor. But would this intimidation factor be enough to make up for the slower rate of fire? I mean, would it make the enemy keep his head down more effectively than the higher number of shots of a less powerful gun? Personally I think no, but I thought I would put it out there.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 09, 2010 1:20 am
Intimidation does have a huge effect in combat. Look at WW1. The tank was a hurrendous, slow and unreliable contraption however when the Germans first saw them they shat their pants and surrendered. Then again, if you're a mobster fighting in a cafe with a .44 against guys with Mac10's. The guys with the Mac10's are more likely to win.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 21, 2010 8:22 pm
the fear factor of a gun is always a plus, lets say a guy pulls out a .22 pistol and points it a me but i pull out dual G-18's with 32 extended mags and laser sighting, the other guy would probably throw his gun down if i asked him too, but at the same time, bigger and scarier aren't always better, i can draw and fire off an accurate round outa my S&W-M&P compact in 3.268 seconds, when it would take longer for some one else to draw a bigger .44 mag, it all depends on you prefrence i guess.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 25, 2010 9:29 am
The Marble King Intimidation does have a huge effect in combat. Look at WW1. The tank was a hurrendous, slow and unreliable contraption however when the Germans first saw them they shat their pants and surrendered. Then again, if you're a mobster fighting in a cafe with a .44 against guys with Mac10's. The guys with the Mac10's are more likely to win. Actually the tank was effective in more ways than just intimidation. It provided a large amount of protection for a machine gun crew, while at the same time allowing them to be mobile. It was really the answer to trench warfare, and if the British had any clue as to how to deploy them, they easily could have won the war. But I know what you're saying, and you're right that the tank had an enormous intimidation factor that allowed it to accomplish things that it wouldn't have been able to otherwise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 11:46 am
death angel712 The Marble King Intimidation does have a huge effect in combat. Look at WW1. The tank was a hurrendous, slow and unreliable contraption however when the Germans first saw them they shat their pants and surrendered. Then again, if you're a mobster fighting in a cafe with a .44 against guys with Mac10's. The guys with the Mac10's are more likely to win. Actually the tank was effective in more ways than just intimidation. It provided a large amount of protection for a machine gun crew, while at the same time allowing them to be mobile. It was really the answer to trench warfare, and if the British had any clue as to how to deploy them, they easily could have won the war. But I know what you're saying, and you're right that the tank had an enormous intimidation factor that allowed it to accomplish things that it wouldn't have been able to otherwise. Since that post I've actually changed my opinion on WWI tanks, and I completely agree with you. The main reason they did so badly was because Sir Douglas Haig was a terrible general who treated his men like s**t. In my opinion, he should have never been knighted, neither should he have been accepted in to the army. His war of attrition got thousands killed and his doctrines and beliefs were backwards.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2011 3:19 pm
death angel712 The Marble King Intimidation does have a huge effect in combat. Look at WW1. The tank was a hurrendous, slow and unreliable contraption however when the Germans first saw them they shat their pants and surrendered. Then again, if you're a mobster fighting in a cafe with a .44 against guys with Mac10's. The guys with the Mac10's are more likely to win. Actually the tank was effective in more ways than just intimidation. It provided a large amount of protection for a machine gun crew, while at the same time allowing them to be mobile. It was really the answer to trench warfare, and if the British had any clue as to how to deploy them, they easily could have won the war. But I know what you're saying, and you're right that the tank had an enormous intimidation factor that allowed it to accomplish things that it wouldn't have been able to otherwise. "Do you remember the letter that granny wrote me?
You do? You remember how I ended it?...
You do realize that you could walk faster than the tanks moved, right?
... 'I cherish the memories of a question my grandson asked me the other day:
'Grandpa were you a hero in the war?' Grandpa said
'No. But I served in a company of heroes.'"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 11:42 am
Sine Auctore death angel712 The Marble King Intimidation does have a huge effect in combat. Look at WW1. The tank was a hurrendous, slow and unreliable contraption however when the Germans first saw them they shat their pants and surrendered. Then again, if you're a mobster fighting in a cafe with a .44 against guys with Mac10's. The guys with the Mac10's are more likely to win. Actually the tank was effective in more ways than just intimidation. It provided a large amount of protection for a machine gun crew, while at the same time allowing them to be mobile. It was really the answer to trench warfare, and if the British had any clue as to how to deploy them, they easily could have won the war. But I know what you're saying, and you're right that the tank had an enormous intimidation factor that allowed it to accomplish things that it wouldn't have been able to otherwise. "Do you remember the letter that granny wrote me?
You do? You remember how I ended it?...
You do realize that you could walk faster than the tanks moved, right?
... 'I cherish the memories of a question my grandson asked me the other day:
'Grandpa were you a hero in the war?' Grandpa said
'No. But I served in a company of heroes.'" You do realise that a single man can't carry armour plating, multiple machine guns and a cannon, right? I do see your point though, those things were super slow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 10:31 am
what you are trying to do is produce cacophony related shell-shock, like my roommate experienced her first time at an indoor shooting range with cheap earplugs. When people were using shot guns and heavy pistols at the same time as rifles and small pistols, she was unable to concentrate, or do much of anything.
Now here's you with one fire arm, and you are asking about Rate of Fire vs. Bullet size.
A bushmaster carbon 15 is a screamingly loud machine from what I've heard when fully automatic, even though it's just a 9mm. This would be more intimidating than a .44, but as you know, EXTREMELY heavy rounds cause the air to tremble like concert speakers, so if you are close enough, and you have something like a high powered .500, you might get more intimidation from a single deafening round.
In terms of logic, bullets kill unarmored flesh, and heavy rounds and AP rounds cut through armor like butter. But smaller rounds, even if AP, don't "sound" AP, so a guy in a flak jacket might not be intimidated in the same way, as a heavy caliber "hand cannon" makes it clear "your armor is paper. GTFO".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2011 12:00 am
why carry six when you can carry like... 18 rounds in an already effective caliber?
followed by the same amount every time in extra magazines not even 2 seconds after the first is emptied....
6 shot revolvers are fine for everyday carry IMO, but if you carry with that capacity expecting that you're going to be in a big firefight, and also know that you don't exactly have the easiest or fastest means of reloading then you're either dim witted or suicidal.
intimidation (assuming that has something to do with caliber) with no real ability to put aggression (lots of shooting) behind it is useless.
even if you wanted to shoot fast with a powerful revolver, it's a waste.
you'll likely find yourself trying to save what little ammo you have in the gun, and that does you no good when the guy with the semi auto is going to take full advantage of your inability to effectively match what he's dishing out.
intimidation is generally useless. a good fighter knows what's important is how much easier and how well you are able to execute your job of ******** up the enemy. don't even give them time to feel intimidated, let them feel it after they eat dirt.
remember that it's a gunfight, not a d**k measuring contest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
