Game Informer and Revolvers

[Morgoth]

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

I'm quite resistant, I think I can endure one or two goofy things (like revolvers).

[alanschu]

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.

 

 

At the same time, I think very little will be missing if they aren't there.

 

I think it's not a big deal personally.

[Pop]

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.

It also seems realistic that he can just use one SMG at a time!

[alanschu]

They are actually dual wield only?

[Cl_Flushentityhero]

They are actually dual wield only?

 

Yeah, that was pretty much my reaction.

[alanschu]

Hahahahaha that's silly.

[Humodour]

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?

 

Ever heard of a pump action revolver?

[Oner]

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?

 

Ever heard of a pump action revolver?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolver#Double_action

[Humodour]

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?

 

Ever heard of a pump action revolver?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolver#Double_action

 

Booooring. Pump action revolvers are way better.

 

Automatic revolvers are also cool. Cooler than your mum.

[Oner]

Booooring. Pump action revolvers are way better.

 

Automatic revolvers are also cool. Cooler than your mum.

Which is hardly an achievement.

[Humodour]

Booooring. Pump action revolvers are way better.

 

Automatic revolvers are also cool. Cooler than your mum.

Which is hardly an achievement.

 

That's what she said.

[Oner]

Booooring. Pump action revolvers are way better.

 

Automatic revolvers are also cool. Cooler than your mum.

Which is hardly an achievement.

That's what she said.

She also called you H

[Humodour]

Booooring. Pump action revolvers are way better.

 

Automatic revolvers are also cool. Cooler than your mum.

Which is hardly an achievement.

That's what she said.

She also called you H

[Oner]

Nonsense! She was quite impressed and reassured by my size. I think you are a nasty liar!

Self delusion must be wonderful.

(Okay, let's stop this now.)

[Revolverhawk]

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.

 

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.

[Revolverhawk]

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

 

 

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.

Edited July 19, 2009 by Revolverhawk

[alanschu]

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.

 

 

Lets be honest now, if you got suddenly attacked at close range, the chances of you pulling out any weapon and effectively firing it is pretty ****ty.

[alanschu]

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.

 

 

Unlikely. I bet Jerry Miculek could fire those pistols fire than almost anybody else in the world.

 

You'll notice in that link I sent by the way, that the sidearms of the special forces units were listed. If anyone is choosing to use a .357 magnum, it's not standard issue. And they probably don't choose to use it all the time, but only in a specific circumstance.

[Cl_Flushentityhero]

So, standard issue = good?

[alanschu]

No, it means the commentary about .357 magnums is neither here nor there.

 

I know it's just Wikipedia, but if .357s were a common load out of Navy SEALs, my guess is someone would have mentioned it.

[Revolverhawk]

No, it means the commentary about .357 magnums is neither here nor there.

 

I know it's just Wikipedia, but if .357s were a common load out of Navy SEALs, my guess is someone would have mentioned it.

 

 

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.

Edited July 23, 2009 by Revolverhawk

[AlphaPro]

I cant believe a post whether to have revolvers or not has gone on for five pages.

 

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.

[Cl_Flushentityhero]

No, it means the commentary about .357 magnums is neither here nor there.

 

I know it's just Wikipedia, but if .357s were a common load out of Navy SEALs, my guess is someone would have mentioned it.

 

What exactly does neither here nor there mean in this case? Why should MT only carry what's common?

[alanschu]

No, it means the commentary about .357 magnums is neither here nor there.

 

I know it's just Wikipedia, but if .357s were a common load out of Navy SEALs, my guess is someone would have mentioned it.

 

 

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?

[alanschu]

No, it means the commentary about .357 magnums is neither here nor there.

 

I know it's just Wikipedia, but if .357s were a common load out of Navy SEALs, my guess is someone would have mentioned it.

 

What exactly does neither here nor there mean in this case? Why should MT only carry what's common?

 

 

Why shouldn't he?

 

Or, more importantly, why should the devs spend time working on implementing pistols, rather than something else? If you're going to grant options "just because" then you run the risk of feature creep. Why not single SMGs? Why not sawed off shotguns? Why not lever action rifles?

 

 

Look at it this way, if Michael Thorton only had access to revolvers, unless there's a contextual reason why, it'd seem unusual and jarring to the setting. If Michael Thorton only has access to modern semi-automatic pistols, then people say "hey it'd be cool if he had a revolver."