Game Informer and Revolvers

[J.E. Sawyer]

Just out of curiosity, a question to those of you who (like me) actually has access to handguns and shoot them fairly regularly: how many times have you had a pistol jam on you?

My experience with semi-auto handguns is pretty limited, but the Springfield Armory M1911 .45 I used jammed 1/4 times on releasing the slide after reloading, and there was about a 50% chance one of the rounds in the mag would jam during normal operation.

 

Anthony Davis (ex-U.S. Army) told me that it was not uncommon to be issued a semi-auto sidearm that had some sort of jamming issue and that some soldiers would carry personal revolvers for that reason.

[alanschu]

Just out of curiosity, a question to those of you who (like me) actually has access to handguns and shoot them fairly regularly: how many times have you had a pistol jam on you?

 

I've fired a lot of rounds with the Husqvarna m/07, and later with the Pistol m/88 and I've never had a jam.

 

The only time I've ever had a gun jam on me was with a fully automatic machine gun from the fifties ( http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ksp_58 ) and when that happened I ran into the woods in fear. This happened in the early nineties.

 

 

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.

[Revolverhawk]

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.

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.

[Revolverhawk]

Just out of curiosity, a question to those of you who (like me) actually has access to handguns and shoot them fairly regularly: how many times have you had a pistol jam on you?

 

I've fired a lot of rounds with the Husqvarna m/07, and later with the Pistol m/88 and I've never had a jam.

 

The only time I've ever had a gun jam on me was with a fully automatic machine gun from the fifties ( http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ksp_58 ) and when that happened I ran into the woods in fear. This happened in the early nineties.

 

 

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.

 

[Mirren]

though not a revolver, Luger anyone?

[Morgoth]

Revolvers are old fashioned and inpractical. I doubt a spy would use such a thing these days.

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!

Yeah, right. But a real Agent would look silly when engaged into close combat, say within a house. I mean you get one shot with your revolver while your opponent can pour 7-8 shots with his Glock 19 into your direction in the same amount of time.

Edited July 13, 2009 by Morgoth

[J.E. Sawyer]

I mean you get one shot with your revolver while your opponent can pour 7-8 shots with his Glock 19 into your direction in the same amount of time.

what

[Oblarg]

Revolvers are old fashioned and inpractical. I doubt a spy would use such a thing these days.

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!

Yeah, right. But a real Agent would look silly when engaged into close combat, say within a house. I mean you get one shot with your revolver while your opponent can pour 7-8 shots with his Glock 19 into your direction in the same amount of time.

 

Ever heard of a double action revolver?

[Morgoth]

Revolvers are old fashioned and inpractical. I doubt a spy would use such a thing these days.

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!

Yeah, right. But a real Agent would look silly when engaged into close combat, say within a house. I mean you get one shot with your revolver while your opponent can pour 7-8 shots with his Glock 19 into your direction in the same amount of time.

 

Ever heard of a double action revolver?

No, but you can fire faster with a semiautomatic than with some old relict.

 

Revolvers are inpractical in really dangerous situations. Period.

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

You're wrong.

[Morgoth]

Yeah yeah, Revolvers are better and everything, why haven't they replaced the standard-guns(?) (Faustfeuerwaffe) then? Is it merely a price issue, or what?

[J.E. Sawyer]

Speed is not the most important factor when firing a handgun. That said, both single-action and double-action revolvers can be fired very quickly.

 

 

There is no ejection cycle on a revolver, so a skilled shooter can fire, cock, and fire again extremely fast.

 

If revolvers were that impractical, no one would use them anymore. Semi-automatic pistols have a lot of advantages, but they do not make revolvers obsolete. Similarly, bolt-action rifles have many advantages over lever-action rifles, but lever-action rifles are still in use for a lot of different reasons. Ultimately, revolvers are more durable than semi-autos, can handle greater case pressures, and are more reliable (though this margin is minor with brand new firearms, it can become more pronounced over time).

 

It's sort of off-topic with regards to AP, but this is a "The More You Know" moment.

[J.E. Sawyer]

Wait a minute... Morgoth is Austrian... Glock is Austrian...

 

Hmm.

 

 

Don't say it.

 

[mrmumbles]

Speed is not the most important factor when firing a handgun. That said, both single-action and double-action revolvers can be fired very quickly.

 

 

There is no ejection cycle on a revolver, so a skilled shooter can fire, cock, and fire again extremely fast.

 

If revolvers were that impractical, no one would use them anymore. Semi-automatic pistols have a lot of advantages, but they do not make revolvers obsolete. Similarly, bolt-action rifles have many advantages over lever-action rifles, but lever-action rifles are still in use for a lot of different reasons. Ultimately, revolvers are more durable than semi-autos, can handle greater case pressures, and are more reliable (though this margin is minor with brand new firearms, it can become more pronounced over time).

 

It's sort of off-topic with regards to AP, but this is a "The More You Know" moment.

 

I'm glad I previewed my post, I was about to show the same video. And as I was going to say, he may be an expert, but it proves the point.

[Morgoth]

I'm not really well versed with guns, so my apologise if I have angered the "experts" here on the forums.

 

Yo, but I do know that Glock and Steyr-Mannlicher are Austrian manufacturers, I'm not that dim.

[alanschu]

I have a feeling most people aren't like Mr. Jerry, so it actually doesn't prove the point.

 

 

I won't dispute that revolvers aren't completely obsolete, and will have some advantages over a semi-automatic pistol. But the fact remains that the revolvers are nowhere near as common anymore.

 

 

 

I know Wikipedia is only so accurate, but looking at the list of currently in use sidearms, I don't see many revolvers being used by the US Military forces.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_indiv...S._armed_forces

[213374U]

I know Wikipedia is only so accurate, but looking at the list of currently in use sidearms, I don't see many revolvers being used by the US Military forces.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_indiv...S._armed_forces

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.

[J.E. Sawyer]

I know Wikipedia is only so accurate, but looking at the list of currently in use sidearms, I don't see many revolvers being used by the US Military forces.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_indiv...S._armed_forces

Most militaries do not use revolvers, but there are a lot of reasons why a soldier in the field would use something that a private citizen would not, or vice-versa. Semi-autos are very lightweight compared to most revolvers (e.g. a Glock 17 is 22 oz., a Ruger GP-100 is 40 oz.). Not necessarily that important if you're a private citizen or security guard. If you're a soldier already carrying a ton of gear, it's a big deal. Additionally, soldiers in the field, unlike private citizens, might actually have to fire a ton of rounds over the course of a single engagement. For a soldier, carrying more than two magazines of ammunition is not "weird", and magazines certainly pack flatter and more easily than a revolver speed loader. Private citizens or those who are attempting to be inconspicuous aren't going to carry three, four, or five magazines of ammunition unless they are wired paranoid types.

 

There are also times when even "superior" armament choices are passed over for purely logistical/political reasons. For example, some will argue that .45 ACP is a superior combat round to 9mm Luger/Parabellum/NATO. The same can be suggested about .30-06 Springfield vs. .308 Winchester/7.62x51 NATO. US armed forces have almost entirely switched over to using the former rounds, mostly for logistical reasons (hint: NATO!).

 

For soldiers in the field, revolvers are typically an inferior choice to a semi-auto. But ultimately all firearms are tools for a specific application. Revolvers still have roles in which they are superior, which is why they continue to see widespread use in the present day.

[alanschu]

So I guess the important thing here is, do the situations that would be better served by a revolver apply to Michael Thorton?

[alanschu]

I know Wikipedia is only so accurate, but looking at the list of currently in use sidearms, I don't see many revolvers being used by the US Military forces.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_indiv...S._armed_forces

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.

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

So I guess the important thing here is, do the situations that would be better served by a revolver apply to Michael Thorton?

He'd just look more badass?

[Morgoth]

I take authenticity over badass look anytime, anywhere.

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

I'm not sure this is the game for you, then.

[entrerix]

ya, this game looks very much like james bond meets jason bourne. not really much realism

[Cl_Flushentityhero]

I'm a little confused here. It seems perfectly "realistic" that Thornton would be able to get his hands on a revolver if he wanted.