Revolverhawk

An NPC uses revolvers, and Thornton is confirmed as having access to semi-auto pistols. The asset's already in the game, might as well use it. And yes, they should have single SMGs QFGT- Quoted for Genius Truth. An NPC already uses them, the asset *is* already in the game.

Heh, nice work

I will agree that MANswers is not the most scientific show on the planet. But I still agree with what AlphaPro said- "Yes, the military does not use them. Some SEALS do, but MT is NOT in the military. hes a green field agent, and that basically means that hes not limited to whatever the military carries. In real life, a revolver has its uses and has its problems, just like a semi-auto. So, why not put it in anyway? Those that are so strictly against having a revolver in the game just because a field agent would not likely take one can just pretend it doesnt exist. One of the screenshots shows him with a Javelin. I don't think most CIA agents just keep one of those around there house. But nobodys complaining about having a rocket launcher in there. Why? Because what else are you going to take out Tanks with. Revolvers have their uses too." MT carries a rocket Launcher. He has some pretty exotic weaponry. The fact he has access to ROCKET LAUNCHERS says a lot about what he could get if he felt like it. So why not just throw in some revolvers anyways?

I never said it was a common load out. I just said some choose to carry it. SEALS are allowed to choose their sidearms last time I checked. Also, it is mentioned in an episode of MANswers. The episode about the S&W .500 Magnum to be precise. Also, I never said that their .357 magnum revolvers would be super awesome guns that are totally superior to every other sidearm and that they would always carry them. You can't silence a revolver, so obviously in ops where you need a silenced weapon, they would carry something else or at least a second pistol. I just said that because SEALS sometimes choose to carry them, there is obviously some advatages to having them. Here is the episode in which it is mentioned: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UKu2zbMHJ0 Keep in mind, the dude speaking is a retired SWAT Officer. He's not a SEAL, but he is not a civilian either. My guess is when you want a lighweight, reliable "backup" gun for long range shooting, that is when you would carry it. Your quoting MANswers as your source? What's next, Spetsnaz will dominate the Green Beret's because Deadliest Warriors said so? No, I am quoting the retired SWAT Officer they hired as my source. I wouldn't quote the shows announcer, on the grounds he is just a narrator, or one of the super models, on the grounds that they are just models. I am quoting a retired SWAT Officer who happened to appear on the show. Please read my statement in full. Also, I agree with what AlphaPro said. I don't pretend that revolvers are superior weapons-but some people do use them, and MT does carry unorthadox weaponry, like Javelins.

I never said it was a common load out. I just said some choose to carry it. SEALS are allowed to choose their sidearms last time I checked. Also, it is mentioned in an episode of MANswers. The episode about the S&W .500 Magnum to be precise. Also, I never said that their .357 magnum revolvers would be super awesome guns that are totally superior to every other sidearm and that they would always carry them. You can't silence a revolver, so obviously in ops where you need a silenced weapon, they would carry something else or at least a second pistol. I just said that because SEALS sometimes choose to carry them, there is obviously some advatages to having them. Here is the episode in which it is mentioned: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UKu2zbMHJ0 Keep in mind, the dude speaking is a retired SWAT Officer. He's not a SEAL, but he is not a civilian either. My guess is when you want a lighweight, reliable "backup" gun for long range shooting, that is when you would carry it.

Actually, as stated previously, some U.S. Navy seals use .357 magnum revolvers. Revolvers just aren't standard issue. And they aren't standard issue because most soldiers only get 2 months of standard boot camp training before being deployed during a war-and you would need high ammo capacity/rate of fire to get any use out of a weapon without much training. For someone who is an accurate shot, the low ammo capacity is not as much of an issue. Secondly, you aren't roleplaying as "most people." You are supposedly roleplaying as one of the most badass people on the planet. Which means Jerry Miculek would be a peer... or inferior to you.

Are quality and reliability the only factors the US military looks at when deciding who's going to be supplying the next zillion rifles for the grunts? Not even they have an unlimited budget. Certainly there is a lot to be said for standards and so forth (As Sawyer also pointed out), but given that revolvers used to be the standard, unless there's a huge cost benefit to using a more complicated weapon like a semiautomatic pistol, my best guess is that the military considers the semiautomatic pistol to be a more effective weapon than the revolver. For personal use, the revolver seems appealing not necessarily because it's a more effective pistol than a semiautomatic (with metrics of stopping power, lethality, etc), but rather that they are simpler weapons that don't require as much maintenance (important for personal use since for many people, the gun will probably never actually be used), has easier ammunition storage, is easier to fire, etc. My best guess though, is that from some quick reading on the ultra-reliable internets, the advantages of a revolver become diminished in the hands of someone that is knowledgeable and diligent in maintaining the weapon. If you suddenly got attacked at close range, tried to pull a gun, and shoot at the guy while he is punching you, a semi-auto stands a high chance of being limp wristed and jamming. A revolver would not jam. I suppose you could argue that you wouldn't need a second shot, but a lot of people wouldn't take that chance.

I jammed a Glock 17 my very first shot because I didn't know how to shoot it properly. Snapped my wrists too much and instant jam. It was at this point I realize that the thousands of people I killed in Counterstrike did not prepare me for going on a murderous rampage.

The reason for this is because people don't play FPS's to get a truely realistic experiance per se. They don't want to play the "sit down and clean your gun for 20 minutes after you've just shot somebody" minigame, nor the "apply tourniquet minigame either. It comes down to "to realistic". While Jamming may be something people want in games, it'd break the action and ultimatly take the game out of the players hands more often than would probably be feasable. Also if you throw random jamming into multiplayer, people would curse the developers because there would be MANY cases where a guy is about to pull of a fantastic kill series, and win the game for his team, only to have the thing jam and kill him. or he sneaks up on an opponent only to have it jam, the other guy hear the jam and kill him etc etc. FPS's are designed to be fast paced, anything that really breaks that pace is thrown out because it'll make the game less appealing to the average adrenaline junkie who buys these things. I suppose that's true. Of course, as someone said above, this game is a RPG. But I can seee why it would never occur in an FPS.

Hitting a man-sized target at 150m is difficult enough with an AR - a handgun is hardly suitable for sniping targets across the battlefield, unless you want to get a bit fantastic about combat. That's exactly the case in AP, so I'm sure the DEagle's tendency to jam can be toned down a bit. On the plus side, a .357 DEagle holds 9 rounds (7 for the .50 AE), versus a meager 5 on the S&W. I'm not a fan of the DEagle, but I don't see it as being a much worse choice in combat than any other disproportionately huge gun. None of that matters however, considering we are going to see stuff like SMG dual wielding. I think any semblance of realistic combat went out the window very early in development, so both weapons are likely to have a place in the game. The Smith and Wesson .500 uses an identical caliber, with a LOT more force behind it. Not surprisingly, it has a lot more accuracy over long range than the .50 AE. Of course Caliber is not all that matters, there is also bullet wieght, but the point is that the .500 has great long range accuracy in comparison to the Desert Eagle- it can accurately hit deer at 200 yards-with a lot of stopping power left over. Of course, a deer is a lot wider than a human, but that is roughly an extra 50 meters over the 150 meter distance you quoted. The problem is that large, heavy handguns are only practical at longer ranges in a shootout. A 50. AE has identical caliber, but a lot less force. It would "run out of steam" and become inaccurate far more quickly. By contrast, the .500 S&W is accurate up to about 200 yards/meters, and the .460 S&W is accurate up to 250 yards/meters. The desert eagle holds more ammo, and has a recoil harnessing mechanism that loads the chamber, thus making it better at spraying fire...but accuracy would be more important for long range shooting, and spraying fire is more practical for close range gunfights. And, as noted earlier, a large, heavy handgun is not really wanted for close range shootouts anyways. You want a speedy draw, and the ability to quickly bring a gun to bear, you don't need much raw power to kill a human being at close range. That said, I suppose the desert eagle could be practical at medium range, with a higher rate of fire/greater ammo capacity. But the .500 and the .460 would rule in terms of long range stopping power/accuracy, and thus be useful as relatively small, easy to carry long range rifle backups. Anyways, I would just like to see some revolvers, we don't need the big hunting revolvers anymore than we need the Desert Eagle. And as to an above poster who said that semi-autos are very reliable: Smei-auto's are very reliable if you hold them in the perfect way and don't limp wrist. Sadly, conditions aren't always perfect in a fight to the death. That's especially true of teh Desert Eagle. Simply put, there is a reason why a Navy SEAL would carry a .357 magnum revolver, instead of a .357 Desert Eagle. That's all I am trying to say. Thanks for the posts and all the replies

Revolvers are extremely practical and dead reliable. AP's firearms are a little on the "fantastical" side of realism, but video games in general tend to be pretty forgiving about how ammunition is loaded into weapons. You pick up endless magazines of ammunition and it magically gets sorted into full mags by the time you need to reload. Yippie! Awesome post

Yeah...it would suck if they showed Tapei as being technologically backwards when it has skyscrapers and everything. I see your point. You got my support dude. Here's hoping they show the city properly.

Gotta love an article that starts out with "I'm not qualified in any specific way to make the general assertions I'm about to." I also think he's flat-out wrong to condemn revolvers as a SD/combat weapon. I'd imagine that one of the reasons (as you mention) some specops carry revolvers is because they don't jam. Since there is no feeding mechanism (the rounds remain locked in place until fired), there can be no feeding errors. The article isn't bad, it's just a very strongly-worded opinion piece from somebody who gives us no compelling reason to trust his opinion. But I'm way off topic, as usual. I'm a pistol fan through and through. The more variety we have in that regard the better. I don't mind if there are wildly impractical target/hunting handguns, so long as the practical ones are at least equally effective (preferably moreso). I tend to think of shotguns and ARs as more utilitarian than stylish, so I'm not quite as picky about variety there. Also, a vast number of ARs out there are based on the same few platforms anyway. As for SMGs, well, they pretty much killed it for me when they made them dual-wield, so I don't really have a preference. Wow. This was an intelligent, well worded post. I totally agree, and I apologize for linking to a bad article. I choose to agree with what you said about the site I linked to, and everything else. It has always personally annoyed me that no FPS game developer has ever put "reliability" as a game mechanic. It's an important issue in choosing between certain guns in real life. Anyways, I think you are right on everything, and thank you for posting.

Spec Ops units (Such as Navy SEALS members) in REAL LIFE today occasionally use .357 magnum revolvers, for the reason a poster above listed. As to the .500 magnum handcannon: It could at least be practical as a psuedo "sniper rifle" -a backup in case your main long range gun fails or if your longgun just happens to be a shotgun loaded with shot, and you want an easy to carry, relatively small long range gun for backup. It could be practical for really, really long range combat. A desert eagle by contrast is simply not a good choice for a life or death situation. Anyways: I own an 8 3/8 inch S&W .500, and I know I wouldn't use it for short OR Medium range combat. But if I was going to be in a long range shootout, I might carry it as a backup to my rifle, in case my rifle gets damaged by enemy fire which fails to penetrate my vest or something.

[quote name='H

Okay...Game Informer had an article about this game, which is how I know about it. I love the idea....experience points, upgrades, freedom of choice, deciding how I go through the game...all awesome. But I am something of a revolver enthusiast and I also would really, reaally like some revolvers in this game. I was overjoyed to see that a female character in one of the pictures in Game Informer magazine holding a revolver. Quick question: Is it a weapon that only appears in cutscenes, or can we carry it? Also, are there other revolvers in the game? I would prefer some variety, like being able to choose between .357, .44, and more like maybe .454 casull or even the big .500 S&W, as well as various barrel lengths. So questions... A) Do you think the weapon was just a cutscene only/enemy only, or that we can carry it? B) What weapons are you looking forward to? (Please don't say Desert Eagle, it's just a target shooting/hunting pistol. It's simply not reliable enough for life and death situations.If you don't believe me, check out this site: http://www.zvis.com/dep/articles/depdef.shtml ) Also, if someone can give me confirmation on taht revolver, I am definitely buying this game. Spec Ops in real life sometimes choose to carry .357 magnum revolvers after all.

Seconded. I want a revolver magnum. Preferrably 6 shot .357 magnum in stainless steel, like a smith and wesson 686, or a 6 shot .44 magnum like the current Taurus Ragin Bull 6 inch variety.

I want a revolver too, period. I prefer stainless teel rather than gold though.

I would love to be able to put a scope on a .44 magnum(like the one above) or a .454 casull revolver, especially because revolvers are more accurate over long distances when firing slowly* anyways. I just want a revolver, period. *Semi-autos generally have a barrel built into a moving mechanism designed to harness recoil. Great for reducing recoil and producing a faster rate of fire, less good for long range shooting.