NationStates Jolt Archive

My friend and I were debating over whether a sword is better than a gun. I said I would prefer a sword to a gun, he said swords are stupid and would want a gun. My reasoning is that a swordsman is more skilled than a gunman. A sword is also more honorable. When the crossbow came to Europe, archers petitioned the pope who eventually banned it as a weapon of the devil. Same thing with a gun IMO.

So it is up to you to VOTE and DEBATE.

indiana jones solved this question.

If I cared about honor I wouldn't be killing you with a weapon that kills in under a second.

My friend and I were debating over whether a sword is better than a gun. I said I would prefer a sword to a gun, he said swords are stupid and would want a gun. My reasoning is that a swordsman is more skilled than a gunman. A sword is also more honorable. When the crossbow came to Europe, archers petitioned the pope who eventually banned it as a weapon of the devil. Same thing with a gun IMO.

So it is up to you to VOTE and DEBATE.

Never bring a sword to a gunfight. That's all I have to say.

However, I do LIKE swords more than guns. They're all pretty and shiny and go slashy-slashy. But yeah, in a world of guns, a sword is a crappy thing to have.

Sword. I use one nearly every day- so gotta go with what I love :p

It's a simple problem of badassness/usefulness.

A swordsman and a gunman duel. The gunman has twice the chance of winning, but the swordsman is six times as badass. This leaves the swordsman with a ratio of 6, and the gunman with a ratio of 1/2, meaning that swords are 12 times better than guns.

See?

I'm holding a pistol. You're holding a sword. Chances are I will kill you with that pistol. It takes less skills, it is just as deadly and/or more deadly, and it has a longer range. Honor is irrelevent.

A really really big gun can beat a really really big sword. Really really big swords often miss. Really really big guns (can anyone say bazooka?) often hit. Thus, guns win.

I think the idea was more which kind of weapon you like more, not which weapon is more effective.

I like katanas. Very elegant.

I'm holding a pistol. You're holding a sword. Chances are I will kill you with that pistol. It takes less skills, it is just as deadly and/or more deadly, and it has a longer range. Honor is irrelevent.
...says Fluffywuffy...:eek:

The-Republic']It's a simple problem of badassness/usefulness.

A swordsman and a gunman duel. The gunman has twice the chance of winning, but the swordsman is six times as badass. This leaves the swordsman with a ratio of 6, and the gunman with a ratio of 1/2, meaning that swords are 12 times better than guns.

See?

Your logic is flawless :D

Anyways, I know of a person who can deflect bullets with his sword. Not automatic mind you (AK-47), but semi-auto pistols. He did get hit (they were using blanks...), but to his credit, he deflected the first three. It takes impecibly amazing reflex times. The trick isn't to hit the bullet, but to skim it (Bullet directly hitting blade = broken blade).

I like swords better, they have so much more class and style, but if I'm going to a gun fight...

I'm going with an M-16. :D :mp5: Thank god the Assault Weapons Ban expired...

I believe that the sword is more honorable. However, killing a man for no reason is dishonorable, so that is why the gun is used....

As my poor friend can attest, do not bring a knife to a gun fight...

http://img177.echo.cx/img177/5742/owned4ws.jpg

On a serious note, those who claim a gun requires no skill to shoot has never shot one.

On a serious note, those who claim a gun requires no skill to shoot has never shot one.

Also, on a serious note, ditto for swords- and I don't mean those replica katanas or nancy replica medieval swords neither.

Some guns have swords on them, and for a reason.

If you're close to your enemy, don't try shooting them. They can knock the gun away, take it, or just hit you with the sword while you're raising it to aim.
If you're at medium range, throwing knives can work better than guns.
The strength of the gun is the range.

It's not that one's really better. They have different jobs.

It depends on who is using the weapons. For example if Jesus was using the sword the gun guy is screwed, if the starwars kid was using a sword not so much then.

I like swords better, they have so much more class and style...

I disagree....

http://www.rinku.zaq.ne.jp/hard-metal/Hardballer_GunBox_b.JPG

vs.

http://cutlerscove.com/sword/sword.jpg

The clear winner is the AMT Hardballer.

Bayonet - the best of both worlds!

here here


"Fix Bayonets"

two words great to hear

Bayonet - the best of both worlds!
Good point...

Now this is classy...

http://www.enemyforces.com/firearms/ak74_6.jpg

even in regard to effectiveness:
arquebus vs. any sword in existence
rifle vs. cutlass in close quarters
for that matter, swordsman can beat gunman in close quarters if gunman has anything bigger than a pistol

Some guns have swords on them, and for a reason.

If you're close to your enemy, don't try shooting them. They can knock the gun away, take it, or just hit you with the sword while you're raising it to aim.
If you're at medium range, throwing knives can work better than guns.
The strength of the gun is the range.

It's not that one's really better. They have different jobs.

The Russians had a real hard-on for bayonettes, all thier rifles came with a detachable or foldable bayonette.

Though what has me laughing everytime is that thier sniper rifles come with a bayonette. It leaves me to question how good thier snipers are if they need it...

http://www.dragunov.net/svd/rfw-accs1_sm.jpg

...says Fluffywuffy...:eek:

Uh....is there a problem?

here here


"Fix Bayonets"

two words great to hear


Usually when infantry hear that they'll think...

"Oh shit... this is getting ugly...:headbang: "



PS: i would choose sword if it's melee, otherwise, a good ole Lee Enfield, kicks the shit out of them...

a gun is impersonal and cold. i can see why people think sword fighting has more honour than just shooting somebody. in some ways you've earned your kill, not just got your shot on target first - ergo, honour etc.

if i wanted to kill someone nowadays, gimme a gun. but i'd really prefer the sword

even in regard to effectiveness:
arquebus vs. any sword in existence
rifle vs. cutlass in close quarters
for that matter, swordsman can beat gunman in close quarters if gunman has anything bigger than a pistol
I disagree... a sawed-off shotgun will outperform any sword even in close quarters.

Oh it's gotta be the gunblade /fanboy

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0009S2NBM.01-A36NIL00HJ3IIY._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

On a serious note, those who claim a gun requires no skill to shoot has never shot one.
As someone who has tried to learn both, swords are a much greater pain in the ass to get working.
Anyway, I'm torn between the gun's greater efficiency, bigger holes in things, greater effect, more noise and and the swords ability to be unnessecarily big and jagged. I'm going to have to give the competition to the sword (in general) and the zweihander (in particular).

I disagree... a sawed-off shotgun will outperform any sword even in close quarters.

you got two shots

mind me saying any breastplate armor from the dragoons would reflect that, after all, the shot barrel goes not pack a serious punch.

Usually when infantry hear that they'll think...

"Oh shit... this is getting ugly...:headbang: "



PS: i would choose sword if it's melee, otherwise, a good ole Lee Enfield, kicks the shit out of them...



yeah i know.... but i love that saying

http://cutlerscove.com/sword/sword.jpg

The clear winner is the AMT Hardballer.

Because thats a bloody meatcleaver thats why!

Now this is class
http://www.loveleaf.net/ts/image/539-O_lg.jpg

16th C Spainish rapier.

Hey, both can rate high on the badass factor.

The kill you dead factor, both can do.

Are we under 20 feet apart and drawing weapons to kill each other? I'll take the sword, thank-you-very-much.

We 30 feet apart or more? Watch me while I shoot your butt down and then do the gun kata from Equilibrium.

Like Lonnel said, different tools for different jobs.
(But I collect blades, so I think they're cooler)

Because thats a bloody meatcleaver thats why!

Now this is class
http://www.loveleaf.net/ts/image/539-O_lg.jpg

16th C Spainish rapier.

Oh yeah... *Drools*

you got two shots

mind me saying any breastplate armor from the dragoons would reflect that, after all, the shot barrel goes not pack a serious punch.
If you know when and where to shoot. Those two shots are more than plenty...

I disagree; a gun can be shot from a concealed location at close quarters; i.e. shooting from the hip. 'Tis risky, but a skilled shot can do it.

Another thing about swords vs. guns, I can honestly say that I'd rather have someone attack me with a gun than a sword.

Mainly, because sword wounds that don't instantly (or near instantly) kill me are more likely to end up in my dying a slow agonizing death or with serious permanent damage than if I wasn't killed instantly/near instantly with a gun. I can honestly say I'd rather take a bullet to the leg than have my leg lopped or partially lopped off.

On a serious note, those who claim a gun requires no skill to shoot has never shot one.
However, it takes one hell of a lot less skill to learn how to adequately use a gun compared to the same level of competence with a sword.

Some guns have swords on them, and for a reason.

If you're close to your enemy, don't try shooting them. They can knock the gun away, take it, or just hit you with the sword while you're raising it to aim.
If you're at medium range, throwing knives can work better than guns.
The strength of the gun is the range.

It's not that one's really better. They have different jobs.

I agree completely.

I vote gunblade. The best of both worlds.

for practical combat guns win hands down, but it the uncommon fight where swords win. consider this; your driving down the road and all of a sudden you rear-end someone, and as expected they get out of the car really pissed. Now should they pull a gun on you it is still scary but its like "yeah, you and every one else" but if they pulled out a sword, you'd need a change of pants. because, how many sane people carry swords around? And if they took that sword and set it on fire, you know your F**ked.

Another thing about swords vs. guns, I can honestly say that I'd rather have someone attack me with a gun than a sword.

Mainly, because sword wounds that don't instantly (or near instantly) kill me are more likely to end up in my dying a slow agonizing death or with serious permanent damage than if I wasn't killed instantly/near instantly with a gun. I can honestly say I'd rather take a bullet to the leg than have my leg lopped or partially lopped off.

One word. Gut wounds. Whether its a 5.56mm round or a couple of inches of steel, its going to be a long, painful way of dying. Bullets don't neccessarily kill instantly. Unless the bullet in question happens to be a 155mm type bullet.

I win.

I have a gun that can fire swords accurately to 300 meters. The clips are enormous.

Are we under 20 feet apart and drawing weapons to kill each other? I'll take the sword, thank-you-very-much.

Um, no. More like if you're about 7 feet apart at most. And even then the swordsman has to be better trained than the guy with the gun, as well as hellaciously fast.

for practical combat guns win hands down, but it the uncommon fight where swords win. consider this; your driving down the road and all of a sudden you rear-end someone, and as expected they get out of the car really pissed. Now should they pull a gun on you it is still scary but its like "yeah, you and every one else" but if they pulled out a sword, you'd need a change of pants. because, how many sane people carry swords around? And if they took that sword and set it on fire, you know your F**ked.
Well said, my friend, well said.

rifle vs. cutlass in close quarters
for that matter, swordsman can beat gunman in close quarters if gunman has anything bigger than a pistol
True, but someone with a beretta and a mushroom clip could slaughter all but the best swordsmen in any confrontation where they know about eachother ahead of time.

16th C Spainish rapier.
If you want to be gentlemany about it...

Pistols... at dawn...

http://nas4.atlanta.gbhinc.com/GB/041021000/41021315/pix1627124000.jpg

As someone who has been trained in both, I say that each has there place. Different firearms have different jobs. For CQC, blades do have a slight advantage in skilled hands. A blade also doesn't run out of ammo or jam or need to be reloaded.

Personally I prefer to do my killing from a distance, and for most practical combat purposes favor a firearm. But there is something very beautiful about a sword being used in skilled hands.

One word. Gut wounds. Whether its a 5.56mm round or a couple of inches of steel, its going to be a long, painful way of dying. Bullets don't neccessarily kill instantly. Unless the bullet in question happens to be a 155mm type bullet.

Oh, indeed. Both can result in slow, excruciating death. However, the sword is more likely to result in this than a bullet wound.

Bullets are small compared to swords, and may miss anything vital, or just create smaller, less damaging wounds. A sword slash to the stomach, however, can leave you with your organs falling out, and that's just not pleasant at at.

Though I guess a jab in the gut with a thin sword like a rapier could do similar damage as a bullet would. I don't rightly know, actually.

I prefer Ninja Treachery to either sword or gun.

*Ninja-stars everyone around me in the face, then slinks into the shadows*

Hallo, it is John Joakim Skillman II

I am not much of an infantry firearm man. However, I love Close Combat, and Artillery Guns. So really it depends on the situation:

When at arms reach, it takes just as long to bring a sword down on someone as to bring a pistol up to fire it. And the sword can change directions, pistol can't. Personally I prefer a warhammer, but sword is grand too.

However, at range of maybe 200 yards, a 152 mm Field Gun is just the ticket...

John Joakim Skillman II

Honor is not found in what weapon you weild. Honor is found in how one uses the weapon.

Modern weaponry uses guns because it allows a greater degree of destruction by an individual with less chance of said individual being harmed. Swords were the weapon of choice in old armies due to their ability to cut through non-metal armors and their ability to counter an attack, which again boils down to the greatest degree of destruction with least chance of being harmed. In neither case do these weapons generate honor. They are simply tools of the individual using them, who is honorable or not on his own personal merits.

As for coolness, it all comes down to taste, like would you rather be a pirate or a ninja.

Honor is not found in what weapon you weild. Honor is found in how one uses the weapon.

Modern weaponry uses guns because it allows a greater degree of destruction by an individual with less chance of said individual being harmed. Swords were the weapon of choice in old armies due to their ability to cut through non-metal armors and their ability to counter an attack, which again boils down to the greatest degree of destruction with least chance of being harmed. In neither case do these weapons generate honor. They are simply tools of the individual using them, who is honorable or not on his own personal merits.

As for coolness, it all comes down to taste, like would you rather be a pirate or a ninja.

Someone understands honor anyway.

Pole arms where actually a weapon that was most favored by medivial armies. It allowed for distance and were hand held weapons that was effective against cavalry.

.

As for coolness, it all comes down to taste, like would you rather be a pirate or a ninja.
YAAAAAARRRRRRRG. Yea lily livered land-lubbers, with yer ka-tainas, my flintlock pistol'll blast yea currs.

http://www.ycgift.com/picture/Gun/22-1012.jpg

Someone understands honor anyway.

Pole arms where actually a weapon that was most favored by medivial armies. It allowed for distance and were hand held weapons that was effective against cavalry.

Your typos in order:
1. were.
2. medieval
3. handheld
4. which
5. were

Someone understands honor anyway.

Pole arms where actually a weapon that was most favored by medivial armies. It allowed for distance and were hand held weapons that was effective against cavalry.

I love polearms. I really, really do. Just... blades-on-a-stick are so amazingly cool looking. [/geek]

Your typos in order:
1. were.
2. medieval
3. handheld
4. which
5. were

I apologize in advance for my spelling. I am not the world’s greatest speller to begin with, and am on some pretty strong meds at the moment, which doesn’t help any.

I love polearms. I really, really do. Just... blades-on-a-stick are so amazingly cool looking. [/geek]

Halberds are the best. Spear, hammer, and sharp hook all in one bad ass weapon.

The sword will always have a place in warrior's hearts and in our imagination. Despite the sword being outdated for quite some time, they still hold our imagination and remain active in popular culture. Why do you think the lightsaber is such an icon for a movie that came out in the 70's??

Combat-wise the gun is the great equalizer. Death can be delt with very little training. Although, to use it well requires more training. A sword is only good at close quarters and only in very good hands.

RP-wise, my main character, Prince Drake is an skilled swordfighter. While he may not get much use combat-wise, the speed, agility, and skill needed to be a successful duelist gives Drake the edge in other endevours.

Guns are better for a few reasons

1. They are easy and cheap to produce

2. They make more sense in an army because it takes years of practice to master fighting with a sword, so if that person dies in combat you have just lost a huge investment and asset, where as a gun could take anywhere from a few weeks to a year or two, and guns could be handed to conscripts and still be affective

3. Guns can kill at range or in close

4. bullets travel a 2.5 times the speed of sound, it is impossible for a human to slice that fast with a sword, none the less block the incoming bullet, especally from close range

5. Guns are way cooler

6. In a fight, your are there to win, not to be honorable, honor does not matter

7. Guns are highly virsatile(hunting, war, competitions) Someone can't use a sword to hunt, or wage war

8. Sword wounds are much more easily treated than bullet wounds

9. No modern military uses a sword anymore because guns are much more affective

10. Also there is a gun that can fire a nuclear warhead

Those are some of the reasons why guns are far superior to swords

Halberds are the best. Spear, hammer, and sharp hook all in one bad ass weapon.

Ah, you have to love multipurpose weapons like that.

The sword will always have a place in warrior's hearts and in our imagination. Despite the sword being outdated for quite some time, they still hold our imagination and remain active in popular culture. Why do you think the lightsaber is such an icon for a movie that came out in the 70's??

It might have something to do with it being a blatant phallic symbol...

Hallo, it is John Joakim Skillman II

I am not much of an infantry firearm man. However, I love Close Combat, and Artillery Guns. So really it depends on the situation:

When at arms reach, it takes just as long to bring a sword down on someone as to bring a pistol up to fire it. And the sword can change directions, pistol can't. Personally I prefer a warhammer, but sword is grand too.

However, at range of maybe 200 yards, a 152 mm Field Gun is just the ticket...

John Joakim Skillman II



about the field gun, don't you mean 16 miles, 200 hundred yard could be considered "danger close" depending on the shell.

What do you mean change directions with a pistol???

about the field gun, don't you mean 16 miles, 200 hundred yard could be considered "danger close" depending on the shell.
Bah. Guns, Swords...if you're any good, you've taken 'em out before they get to you. That being said, if I had to choose, I'd take the gun.

http://www.strangecosmos.com/images/content/106529.jpg

8. Sword wounds are much more easily treated than bullet wounds


Er... I'm not really sure what you're talking about here, unless you mean fairly superficial sword wounds that can just be stitched up. Otherwise... I'd say it's easier to care for a bullet wound to the leg than one that's been sliced open, hacked off, or been sliced partially off.

Also, a shot in the gut is probably easier to treat than a disembowlment. Though I guess that might be more of a 'which are you more likely to survive?' scenario... However, the bullet wound wins that. I'm not sure there's much you can do to stuff a person's insides back in and have them survive.

It might have something to do with it being a blatant phallic symbol...

Heh, yeah...

Who was it that said "The reason we shape our torpedoes like a penis is because if we shaped them like vaginas, they wouldn't go straight"

Er... I'm not really sure what you're talking about here, unless you mean fairly superficial sword wounds that can just be stitched up. Otherwise... I'd say it's easier to care for a bullet wound to the leg than one that's been sliced open, hacked off, or been sliced partially off.

Also, a shot in the gut is probably easier to treat than a disembowlment. Though I guess that might be more of a 'which are you more likely to survive?' scenario... However, the bullet wound wins that. I'm not sure there's much you can do to stuff a person's insides back in and have them survive.

It doesn't matter if a bullet rips someones gut open, or if a blade does, your going to die slowly and painfully.

Lightsabers > Guns. :D

guns with swords:
http://www.replicaweaponry.com/gunswithswords.html

Er... I'm not really sure what you're talking about here, unless you mean fairly superficial sword wounds that can just be stitched up. Otherwise... I'd say it's easier to care for a bullet wound to the leg than one that's been sliced open, hacked off, or been sliced partially off.

Also, a shot in the gut is probably easier to treat than a disembowlment. Though I guess that might be more of a 'which are you more likely to survive?' scenario... However, the bullet wound wins that. I'm not sure there's much you can do to stuff a person's insides back in and have them survive.


Thats not exsactly true, The bullets the US Military uses today fragment on entering someones body, there might be a half inch entry wound but a two to three inch exit wound. Plus many guns today can easily blow off limbs. Also a bullet wound could internally bleed so it could be very difficult to find. But if someone is cut by a sword a medic would know exsactly were the wound is. Also say someone was hit buy a 20mm round, they would die almost instantly if the bullet hit near their torso, it would tear large chunk out of there body. Getting hit by a 30mm DU round from an A-10 would make someone explode because of the impact.

It doesn't matter if a bullet rips someones gut open, or if a blade does, your going to die slowly and painfully.

Wouldn't the bullet be more likely to not result in slow n' painful death? Depending on what it hits (or doesn't hit)? As compared to the likelihood of death by disembowlment.

True getting shot in the gut would cause that person's stomac fluid to spill into their body resulting in a slow pain full death.

I think Indiana Jones handled this one for us.

Guns FTW

Thats not exsactly true, The bullets the US Military uses today fragment on entering someones body, there might be a half inch entry wound but a two to three inch exit wound. Plus many guns today can easily blow off limbs. Also a bullet wound could internally bleed so it could be very difficult to find. But uf someone is cut by a sword a medic would know exsactly were the wound is. Also say someone was hit buy a 20mm round, they would die almost instantly if the bullet hit near their torso, it would tear large chunk out of there body. Getting hit by a 30mm DU round from an A-10 would make someone explode because of the impact.

Very good points.

However, I'm still not sure you could say that sword wounds are much more easily treated than bullet wounds, even if some bullet wounds are harder to treat.

I'd definitely never deny that you're more likely to die instantly by a gun than by a sword, though both can undoubtedly result in eventually death. However, once that happens, treatment isn't really an issue. :D

True getting shot in the gut would cause that person's stomac fluid to spill into their body resulting in a slow pain full death.

Well, I didn't mean 'gut' to necessarily mean stomach. Just the entire lower torso area in general.

Definitely a bullet hole in your stomach would be a horrible, horrible way to go.

Interesting discussion.

Even though a gun takes some skill, a novice can easily kill someone which could be embarrassing. Also, wouldn't a quick death making killing senseless. I think if you see someone suffer as they die, you are less likely to do it again...but then again there are plain old killing machines.

Wouldn't the bullet be more likely to not result in slow n' painful death? Depending on what it hits (or doesn't hit)? As compared to the likelihood of death by disembowlment.

Depends on the type of bullet. A bullet kills from hydrostatic shock much more than the hole. The cells of your body are like water ballons all packed closely together. Hit one and the ones around it pop as well, spreading the trama away from the impact site.

Military rounds are designed to wound rather than kill. Kill an enemy, he becomes a sandbag. Wound him and you remove 3 men from the battle field as his comrades help get him out of the line of fire.

Hollow points on the other hand are designed to kill and cause as much damage as possible. A hollow point is more likely to kill rather than hardball ammo.

With a blade the trama is much more localized. But having your digestive juices set free in your abdomen no matter how it happens is one way to almost guarantee a slow and painful death.

Thats not exsactly true, The bullets the US Military uses today fragment on entering someones body, there might be a half inch entry wound but a two to three inch exit wound. Plus many guns today can easily blow off limbs. Also a bullet wound could internally bleed so it could be very difficult to find. But if someone is cut by a sword a medic would know exsactly were the wound is. Also say someone was hit buy a 20mm round, they would die almost instantly if the bullet hit near their torso, it would tear large chunk out of there body. Getting hit by a 30mm DU round from an A-10 would make someone explode because of the impact.

Getting hit by anything that is larger than .50 BMG results in a condition professionaly known as "pink mist".

The biggest difference between sword and bullet wounds is that a sword wound would be easier to sew up or what ever(in most cases that is), but a bullet wound takes a random shaped chunk out of someones body, making it harder to close.

Depends on the type of bullet. A bullet kills from hydrostatic shock much more than the hole. The cells of your body are like water ballons all packed closely together. Hit one and the ones around it pop as well, spreading the trama away from the impact site.

Military rounds are designed to wound rather than kill. Kill an enemy, he becomes a sandbag. Wound him and you remove 3 men from the battle field as his comrades help get him out of the line of fire.

Hollow points on the other hand are designed to kill and cause as much damage as possible. A hollow point is more likely to kill rather than hardball ammo.

With a blade the trama is much more localized. But having your digestive juices set free in your abdomen no matter how it happens is one way to almost guarantee a slow and painful death.


Military rounds are not hardball, they fragment on impact there for the damage is much more likely to kill the person hit than wound them.

Also the bullets used in, say, an AK-47, tumble on impact, producing basically the same result.

Sword..More skill and honor, and also it requires making war more personal..I mean how personal is it killing a man from 1000yds away with a weapon? but when you are in close combat, you can just look into the eyes of the man that will kill you or be killed. and that takes a bunch of mental stability

In my religion, Asatru, it is wished for the days of mideval Europe where the sword was one of the only weapons. It is more honourable to maintain armed to armed combat with a sword where you are face to face with your opponent than shooting someone a mile away.

However, I do not mind using guns being in the military however, I do have a small sword that I practice with when I am home.

Military rounds are not hardball, they fragment on impact there for the damage is much more likely to kill the person hit than wound them.

Military issue rounds are Full Metal Jacket. This required by law under the Geneva convention. They do fragment, but are not designed to do so.

Sword..More skill and honor, and also it requires making war more personal..I mean how personal is it killing a man from 1000yds away with a weapon? but when you are in close combat, you can just look into the eyes of the man that will kill you or be killed. and that takes a bunch of mental stability

1000yrds away can be very personal, there was a sniper in Vietnam who was on a mission to kill a high ranking officer. He observed the officer's habits for 3 days before he took the shot.

Depends on the type of bullet. A bullet kills from hydrostatic shock much more than the hole. The cells of your body are like water ballons all packed closely together. Hit one and the ones around it pop as well, spreading the trama away from the impact site.

Military rounds are designed to wound rather than kill. Kill an enemy, he becomes a sandbag. Wound him and you remove 3 men from the battle field as his comrades help get him out of the line of fire.

Hollow points on the other hand are designed to kill and cause as much damage as possible. A hollow point is more likely to kill rather than hardball ammo.

With a blade the trama is much more localized. But having your digestive juices set free in your abdomen no matter how it happens is one way to almost guarantee a slow and painful death.

Thanks for the information! Very interesting to know.

I guess all I can really say is that if someone's going to hit me with anything in a manner that will be inevitably lethal, please, aim for the head.

Military issue rounds are Full Metal Jacket. This required by law under the Geneva convention. They do fragment, but are not designed to do so.

Not entirelly true, the only rounds that can't be used are hallow point, plus just because a bullet is jacketed doesn't mean it is not designed to fragment, if it was not designed to fragment it would not and it would pass through a person cleanly.

Not entirelly true, the only rounds that can't be used are hallow point, plus just because a bullet is jacketed doesn't mean it is not designed to fragment, if it was not designed to fragment it would not and it would pass through a person cleanly.

High velocity rounds will fragment on on impact due to turblance unless they are case hardened (armor pericing). But are not designed to. It is much cheaper to jacket a round in copper, and less stress on the barrel, than it is to use a hardened metal.

I still stand by assertion that military round are designed to wound rather than kill.

1000yrds away can be very personal, there was a sniper in Vietnam who was on a mission to kill a high ranking officer. He observed the officer's habits for 3 days before he took the shot.


Did he have to clean the blood off his weapon? or hear his agoning cries of death?

Did he have to clean the blood off his weapon? or hear his agoning cries of death?

No but why would he have wanted to, he had 95 confirmed kills in Vietnam, and yes sometimes he he could hear their screams of agony.

It would be nice to know what people actually mean by honour when they say the sword is a more honourable weapon.

Aw, man, I got it to 50/50!

I like guns better. Dunno what it is.

On a serious note, those who claim a gun requires no skill to shoot has never shot one.[/QUOTE]
You cannot claim that a gun requires nearly asmuch skill. I have fired several guns though I cannot claim to have as much skills with pistols as with rifles and shot guns. Pistols are difficult to use very effectively, but not nearly as much as a sword. Swords require much agility and muscle control on a much higher level than guns. Sword on sword fighting technique is some of the most advanced develop concepts ever. Especially in the Eastern traditions where style of swords stayed pretty much the same and were formalized and pass down generation after generation.

A guy with a Gun will shoot you before you get within Dixie of him with your Sword.
So i shall use the Gun and take your Sword.

I would prefer the Sword but i like living just a bit.

To hell with outdated honor systems, just so long as I'm the victor. Remember, history is written by the winners. :D

Guns are the way to go.

"We must be permitted our inherent right to defend our honour through feats of arms!" exclaims Tobias Jefferson, a bewigged aristocrat sporting a particularly flamboyant swept-hilt rapier. "The right to duel is one found throughout history for the honourable settling of disputes and I must insist that my right to fight be recognised! The world would be so much better - and cheaper too - if conflicts of interest were sorted through trial by combat instead of trial by jury."

Did he have to clean the blood off his weapon? or hear his agoning cries of death?
You just kind of missed the whole point. The sniper had to know the person he was killing and he had to be cool about it all.

With a sword, you just rush in adrenaline pumping and you don't particularly have thoughts of ethics and morality until after the battle is over.

My reasoning is that a swordsman is more skilled than a gunman

A gun has greater range. While the swordsman is trying to close the gap in order to be able to even use his weapon, the gunman is blowing him away. Edit: not to mention that a gun can have the power to lay even the largest and strongest of men flat on their back with a single shot, with the gunman requiring only enough strength to twitch his index finger. Such effectiveness with a sword will require exceptional skill and strength. The gun simply provides far more power and effectiveness at must less cost in fatigue and skill. This is why the gun replaced the sword, after all.


A sword is also more honorable.


"Honor" means very little when one's life is at stake. What is more important, a warm-fuzzy feeling or survival?

To add to this whole "fragmenting bullets" issue...did you see that Mythbusters episode?

They fired guns into water to find out how deep you have to be to be safe.

Turns out that rifles, assault rifles, and even a 50cal Sniper Rifle can't penetrate water at all. The bullets immediately turn to dust because of the impact.

Pistols and smaller weapons go through though.

What good is honor if you're dead?

Better to die with honor than to live in disgrace.

Anywho, a brief history of weapons, by me, from the dawn of man to the end of the human world.

Ug hit Thag. Thag hit Ug. Ug grab rock. Rock smash Thag. Thag make spear. Spear stab Thag. Thag throw spear, and we go on to the sword, the bow, the crossbow, the musket, the rifle, the machine gun, the tank, the missile, the nuke, and eventually, if the nuke doesn't kill us all, whatever we eventually use to exterminate all life on this rock. Then, we get to see if the cockroach does a better job when it rules the world.

I figure fists are a whole lot easier for this whole violence thing, so that criteria goes out the window, leaving one way to decide.

A guy with a sword is badass. A girl with a gun is sexy. I'll go with the gun.

You're still dead.

I like the cold and distanced side to guns. And they can look very cool...

I think swords are better for personal vendettas...where sadism is called for.

And duel's...hmm either or.

I like guns a bit more than swords.

My friend and I were debating over whether a sword is better than a gun. I said I would prefer a sword to a gun, he said swords are stupid and would want a gun. My reasoning is that a swordsman is more skilled than a gunman. A sword is also more honorable.

The way you frame it above, this debate really isn't over which is the better weapon, but is the more honorable weapon.

Firearms are cleaerly superior weapons, due to many factors. However, the question of which is more honorable is (as is clear from the posts here) in need of clarification and highly debatable.

When the crossbow came to Europe, archers petitioned the pope who eventually banned it as a weapon of the devil. Same thing with a gun IMO.

1) Crossbows were in use in Europe for about 300 years before Pope Urban II banned their use against Christians.

2) The Second Lateran Council furthered this ban to include slings and archeres as well.

CANON 29

Summary. Slingers and archers directing their art against Christians, are anathematized.

Text. We forbid under penalty of anathema that that deadly and God-detested art of stingers and archers be in the future exercised against Christians and Catholics.


http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran2.html


29. We prohibit under anathema that murderous art of crossbowmen and archers, which is hateful to God, to be employed against Christians and Catholics from now on.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/LATERAN2.HTM

So... Wait... how exactly is giving random peasant #233 a short sword and sending him to fight another army somehow more honorable than giving conscript #334 an AK-47 and sending him out to fight another army. This skill and honor thing is absolute bullshit. You can take any sword and without having even seen it before, stick it in the other guy. You take someone unfamiliar with an AR and give him an AK, he's gonna pull the trigger and spray will go anywhere, probably not accurate to 20 feet.

Personally, I'll take the XM29. Just look at her. She's scary

In conclusion: Shut up

This skill and honor thing is absolute bullshit. You can take any sword and without having even seen it before, stick it in the other guy. You take someone unfamiliar with an AR and give him an AK, he's gonna pull the trigger and spray will go anywhere, probably not accurate to 20 feet.

In conclusion: Shut up

When using a sword, the other party has a much greater chance of being able to defend themselves since you must get close. With a gun you can just sneak up and shoot them from a distance.

To the general topic - swords have one advantage over guns: they do not run out of bullets.

When using a sword, the other party has a much greater chance of being able to defend themselves since you must get close. With a gun you can just sneak up and shoot them from a distance.

If they know what they're doing. Half of this thread is acting like swords will magically bounce off of your opponent if you are a Grandmaster Samurai with your HANZO STEEL.

If you stick two people who have never held swords before in a room and tell them to kill eachother, it will turn out exactly like putting two people who have never seen guns before in the same room and telling them to kill eachother

Well, let's put it this way: I own a full Renaissance costume, I sing madrigals, I know half a dozen of Shakespeare's plays nearly by heart, I read classic fantasy like other people read the Bible, and my full first name is a High Elvish word. Take a wild guess which I'd pick.

Also, swords are shiny. :)

I think both are badass in certain situations. Case in point, Dirty Harry forever made the Colt .44 Mag one of the most badass revolvers in history. Likewise, Solid Snake has forever made the SOCOM HK Mk23 Mod-0 one of the coolest pistols ever. Blade was effective in showing off how cool double-edged swords can be. And let's not forget the Highlanders.

Personally, I love guns. I love swords as well, but there is just something more alluring for guns. And as for honor being irrelevant, well...call me crazy, but I think that qualifies you as a douchebag. Pop your collar up and go someplace else. :D

Oh it's gotta be the gunblade /fanboy

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0009S2NBM.01-A36NIL00HJ3IIY._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

Yeah, imagine the point of balance on that thing, the sword would have to have a crap load of distil taper to make it useable and would be rediculously flimsy due to an incredibly weak tang...but there we go, it is fantasy after all :D

you got two shots

mind me saying any breastplate armor from the dragoons would reflect that, after all, the shot barrel goes not pack a serious punch.

Thats assuming that all the spread from the shotgun hits the breastplate, that the breastplate has been well made and is of a good enough quality tempered steel that has been properly proofmarked so that it might have a chance of taking the hit.

Remember, it might not pierce the brest plate (although I would suspect that it would hurt you else where anyway) it would also kick you straight off your horse with a couple of broken ribs...

My friend and I were debating over whether a sword is better than a gun. I said I would prefer a sword to a gun, he said swords are stupid and would want a gun. My reasoning is that a swordsman is more skilled than a gunman. A sword is also more honorable. When the crossbow came to Europe, archers petitioned the pope who eventually banned it as a weapon of the devil. Same thing with a gun IMO.

So it is up to you to VOTE and DEBATE.

Does it therefore follow, that a small strip of carpet used as a weapon would be better than a sword? You'd have to be INCREDIBLY skilled to kill someone with it, despite being mis-matched against a swordsman-surely!

Interesting discussion.

Even though a gun takes some skill, a novice can easily kill someone which could be embarrassing. Also, wouldn't a quick death making killing senseless. I think if you see someone suffer as they die, you are less likely to do it again...but then again there are plain old killing machines.

This can happen ina sword fight too. There are a couple of stories (esp. in fencing cricles, not proper swrod combat i know but...) of where complete beginners beat pretty - v. good fencers purely because they do something completely unexpected and don't conform to the true priciples of sword fighting (timing, tempo, proper distance etc etc).

If they know what they're doing. Half of this thread is acting like swords will magically bounce off of your opponent if you are a Grandmaster Samurai with your HANZO STEEL.

If you stick two people who have never held swords before in a room and tell them to kill eachother, it will turn out exactly like putting two people who have never seen guns before in the same room and telling them to kill eachother

Exactly, one or both will die.

As many have said before it all boils down to practicality.

You are going to take a gun. The ability to kill at range in personal combat will nearly always beat a close combat weapon (bar the odd chance of the gun jamming, bla bla bla). No matter how skilled the swordsman/woman, a bullet flying faster than the speed of sound will always beat any reaction (no Matrix bullshit here).

However, there are modern examples of sword being used in combat theatres, esp. in the 1960's with Dutch troops who used them in Indonesia (IIRC) as they found them more useful in the jungle than their guns, because, as both sides were so well camoflaged, by the time you realised your enemy was next to you it was easier to dispatch him with the sword than with your gun, esp. if you wanted to take them out reasonably quietly.

Also, bayonets aren't all they are cracked up to be. You stab some one in their stomach with your bayonet, their stomach muscles will instinctivly tighten making it a pain to get your bayonet back out, leaving time for their extremely pissed off buddy to kill you.

Do you know how hard it is to aim a pistol at even 15m? And thats at a stationary target, not a mad sword-wielding lunatic who's running towards you. Yes a rifle will be more accurate, but you've got even less time to aim. Unless there was a realonable distance between me and my opponent I'd rather have a sword, and I have had training with several types of gun and have shot in competition.


However, if I'm going to be really pedantic, a gun is an artillery peice, not a rifle/pistol/revolver/bazuka of any description (if you can even include a bazuka in the same class, its a rocket not a gun). Ask and artilleryman and they'll tell you the same thing. In this case I'd still rather have a sword, far cheaper, and doesn't need reloading.


As for saying that a gun is much better because you can sneak up on someone and shoot them, whats to stop you from doing the same with a sword? Yes you have to get a bit closer undetected, but its still as effective.


There is more I was going to say, but its late at night and I'm tired, so I'll spare you all from more of my mindless drivvel, other than to say that swords look far cooler too :)

Or, an actual real sword/gun combo

Pin fire sword gun (http://www.ruble-enterprises.com/PFsword.htm)

As a fencer I'd say I love my swords, in particular rapiers and small swords.

However were I forced into a fight I would feel infinitely more secure with a .22 rabit hunting rifle than I would with a rapier, even though I'd probably be more 'skilled' with the second.

Do you know how hard it is to aim a pistol at even 15m? And thats at a stationary target, not a mad sword-wielding lunatic who's running towards you. Yes a rifle will be more accurate, but you've got even less time to aim. Unless there was a realonable distance between me and my opponent I'd rather have a sword, and I have had training with several types of gun and have shot in competition.



Something I think people are ailing to take into account is a rifle is 90% as effective in melee combat as a sword. You can fit a bayonet to a rifle, you can also use it as a very effective bludgeon.

As a fencer I'd say I love my swords, in particular rapiers and small swords.

However were I forced into a fight I would feel infinitely more secure with a .22 rabit hunting rifle than I would with a rapier, even though I'd probably be more 'skilled' with the second.

Rapier? pah ;) :p

You want one of these for going to war :D

http://www.christianfletcher.com/Catalog/Swords/Atrim/at1520/at1520_2.JPG

2lbs 12oz of harmonically balanced, razor sharp and rather nifty looking steel

Something I think people are ailing to take into account is a rifle is 90% as effective in melee combat as a sword. You can fit a bayonet to a rifle, you can also use it as a very effective bludgeon.

I give it 10 more posts until someone now claims that a Katana will cut a rifle in half therefore rendering a rifle useless...

Although I kinda agree, i'd rather have a sharp edge than blunt impact trauma weapon...

it depends on the circumstances

and the gun

and how skilled I am with a sword

I hate guns exept futuristic ones,like the ones in doom 3 and alien. Guns are not honourable and not badass. I would prefer it if all knowledge of guns was eradicated and we went back to fighting with the sword. Wars would be ended quicker as more people would have a threat of dying.

However after playing doom all weekend i have too say that a semi automatic gun with sensos lasers and lights can come in useful and looks very cool shoulder slung by karl urban

A sword can be used for sneaky, silent attacks and is more impressive.
Everyone is used to guns, but if you see a guy menacing you with a sword you'll think he's a lunatic and be even more frightened then when he would be holding a gun.

Also: imagine sneaking up your enemy from behind and putting a sword to their throat. Now THAT is scary:D

This man is very cool thpugh and should win a medal for that fiercome desrt eagle pose hes got

http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/16190688/

The ultimate weapon (http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/List_of_weapons_that_don%27t_exist%2C_but_should#Gun_that_shoots_swords)

:eek:

1.5-1.8

right from now on uncyclopedia id added to my favorites

right from now on uncyclopedia id added to my favorites

Their articles on 'Atheism' and 'Making up Oscar Wilde quotes' are particuarly good.:)

My friend and I were debating over whether a sword is better than a gun. I said I would prefer a sword to a gun, he said swords are stupid and would want a gun. My reasoning is that a swordsman is more skilled than a gunman. A sword is also more honorable. When the crossbow came to Europe, archers petitioned the pope who eventually banned it as a weapon of the devil. Same thing with a gun IMO.

So it is up to you to VOTE and DEBATE.

Nothing honorable either way. I am quite skilled with a gun, and it took years to become so. Unless you were a highly skilled practitioner of Iai-do and were standing within blade's reach with a katana, I am willing to bet that I could not only outdraw most swordsmen, I could probably empty my pistol and begin to reload before they could get their sword out.

For those of you who claim a FMJ bullet does more damage than a sword - precisely how do you go about saving the life of someone who's been penetrated by a medieval broadsword in the gut? :rolleyes:

If I owned a sword, I'd gladly show it to my friends and let them play with it (supervised), but if I was in the possession of a gun I might let them know one very sober day.

Regarding skill.. I own an air pistol, I've squeezed off a few shots with a scoped .22 rifle, and even used a professional marksman rifle once. It's really quite easy and does not require any practise on beforehand.

Whereas fencing.. I can imagine you'd need a pretty well built upper body and good stamina and coordination to be able to attack someone successfully.

For those of you who claim a FMJ bullet does more damage than a sword - precisely how do you go about saving the life of someone who's been penetrated by a medieval broadsword in the gut? :rolleyes:

As far as I know, the answer is 'you don't'.

However, I don't think anyone was claiming that an FMJ bullet would do more damage, but other types of bullets, like those that fragment.

A sword can be used for sneaky, silent attacks and is more impressive.
Everyone is used to guns, but if you see a guy menacing you with a sword you'll think he's a lunatic and be even more frightened then when he would be holding a gun.

Also: imagine sneaking up your enemy from behind and putting a sword to their throat. Now THAT is scary:D
I can shoot with this and hardly make any noise.

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b283/jtkwon/DSC_0060.jpg

As far as I know, the answer is 'you don't'.

However, I don't think anyone was claiming that an FMJ bullet would do more damage, but other types of bullets, like those that fragment.

You'd have to get shot by a ~30 mm cannon at close range to sustain the same amount of damage.

[QUOTE=Sel Appa]A sword is also more honorable.QUOTE]

Honor is no good if you're dead. And how is hacking someone apart more homorable than a nice clean bullet to the head. And a gun could kill a swordsman several hundred meters away. Depending on acuracy of course but certantly within 100 feet (or meters or yards)

You'd have to get shot by a ~30 mm cannon at close range to sustain the same amount of damage.

From what I've heard, I get the impression that a bullet can lacerate a person's organs and show only a small entry wound. Also, that exit wounds can be very nasty, and then if you puncture someone's stomach (with anything) the acid will leak out and kill them slowly and excruciately, possibly more so than a disembowlment.

Though I've said before, I'd rather be shot with a gun because it's more likely to either kill me instantly or not do overly much damage, compared to a sword which is more likely to leave me dying for awhile.

Guns are superior as ultimately demonstrated by those arguing for several reasons.

1. Range (Duh)
2. Lethality (They are equal, and I don't want to hear any of that "sword cuts people open" ****. A good bullet to the head is the same as a sword to the head.)
3. Ammo (Yes, a gun runs out, but a swordsman is swinging away with a large piece of metal. Can you say 'tired'?)
4. Versatility (There are a lot of handguns that can put an end to that close-quarters swordsman.)
5. Armor (Sure, the swordsman gets the breasplate. Okay. Then the gun-wielder gets his kevlar jacket that can stop a projectile travelling at 2.5 times the speed of sound... a lot more potent than that sword tip.)
6. Honor (My @$$! One: Nobody's going to care about honor when fighting tooth and nail to live. Two: Honor's a state of mind. Dueling pistols was an honorable practice of the founding fathers of America.)
7. Coolness factor. (.....*SMACK*)
8. Mutability (I've personally used an SKS, an AK, and several types of handgun. While they do require skill, it's easy to aim and hit after only a few shots. I've attempted to wield swords just as often, and have nearly cut my own head off.)
9. Cost Of Life (Did I really see some idiot say we should all go back to swords to preserve life? The gun, as stated before, can be used to wound only. Sword blows are significantly harder to ensure a simple wound won't lead to death. Battles of attrition with swords were also the number one method of population control.)

Overall: For all ranges of situations, from stealth combat to idiots having at each other, guns are simply preferrable.

I'll take the gun, thanks. But when it comes down to melee, I intend to have my collection of irons on hand as well.Tire iron, Seven iron, Waffle iron, and, well, regular iron.

http://www.fido.sakhalin.ru/wayofsword/projects/europe/landsknechte/weapon/zweihander3.jpg

http://casagrande.blogs.com/frederic/images/2005-09-04-01.jpg

Ahhhh... choices. :D

I can shoot with this and hardly make any noise.

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b283/jtkwon/DSC_0060.jpg


Yah, but why pay the extra $200 for the class III "tax" and give up your right to say, "no, you may not enter my house without a warrant, officer."?

I can shoot with this and hardly make any noise.

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b283/jtkwon/DSC_0060.jpg

Isn't that a bit top heavy?

Okay, from a distance of 30 feet or less-- I'd probably side with the guy with the sword. Unless that pistol's in your hand already, the sword guy is probably going to beat you to the first hit.

However, given that I only have experience with firearms, I'd stick with what I knew.

Anything over that 30 ft., I pick the gun.

As for that bayonet on the Russian sniper rifle comment, Mt:
Russian sniper tactics were different when the Dragunovs were designed. Generally, there was a sniper assigned to every infantry unit. Their tactics were to use them in combat from an average of 800 meters, rather than the American tactic of a two-man group, and nuking from orbit. So, it could come down to using the bayonet.

Just give it an extended magazine >:-)

Okay then everybody, lets take a look here:
http://www.24hourmuseum.org.uk/content/images/2004_0795.JPG
vs.
http://www.marxists.org/glossary/events/w/ww1/pics/ww1/russia/galacia.jpg

Now, who wins?
I want everybody to think back to the Crimean War and a certain charge and tell me what you think :P

Definitely both. What could possibly be cooler than a pistol and a shortsword?

But, that said, while guns may be more effective, swords are cooler. They just are. I find a quarterstaff (or a spear that is wielded like a quarterstaff) to be even cooler than a sword, though.

In a practice match, I'd take a quarterstaff (as long as the other guy also had one). Or swords, if I had to take one of the two listed.

In a real fight, what I would rather use would be dependant on the range of the fight. Up close, I would use the mighty Blunt Object, or if there are no Blunt Objects to hand, I would use the time-honoured Handful of Gritty Stuff to throw into my adversary's eyes, then my Legs to run away like a girl. At a distance, I would use a combination of my Legs (for aforementioned Running Away Like a Girl) and Hiding Skills (to, obviously, Hide Like an Abject Coward).

My vote goes to swords, though. Why? Because, while flintlock pistols were cool, current guns are boring and swords are simply 10 times (at least) as cool.

I still stand by assertion that military round are designed to wound rather than kill.
They are, which is the primary reason our military switched from the M-14 to that poodleshooter of an M-16. However, it assumes that your opponent cares enough about the survival of it's combatants in order to care for them. Given the nature of our current conflict, we need to go back to the big bullets.

Isn't that a bit top heavy?
Nope. And it's extremely quiet.

I can shoot with this and hardly make any noise.

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b283/jtkwon/DSC_0060.jpg

Without special buffer pads along the frame, a supressed pistol still makes a very distinct sound when fired due to the cycleing of the action. Then it is only quite if subsonic ammunition is used.

Someone understands honor anyway.

Pole arms where actually a weapon that was most favored by medivial armies. It allowed for distance and were hand held weapons that was effective against cavalry.

Amen, swords were largley symbolic, because of blades of that size are difficult to produce on large scale and prohibitly expensive, also it is difficult to train large numbers to properly use them. The exception to that was the spanish gladius which was an extremly short sword and was mass produced for the roman army. Againt though, their primary weaponry is the spear. Every weapon has a time and a place and a situation.

Well, let's put it this way: I own a full Renaissance costume, I sing madrigals, I know half a dozen of Shakespeare's plays nearly by heart, I read classic fantasy like other people read the Bible, and my full first name is a High Elvish word. Take a wild guess which I'd pick.

Also, swords are shiny. :)

Curiously, what is your name? And I love Renaissance Faires; my friend once worked at the King Richard's Faire in Carver, Massachusetts for two summers. So much fun, as you could get a pint and big turkey leg. And contrary to popular belief the attractive women there are aplenty, and so are entire families in full costume (though some people wear Klingon battle armor because it looks cool lol).

Guns are much more effective killing weapons then swords

My friend and I were debating over whether a sword is better than a gun. I said I would prefer a sword to a gun, he said swords are stupid and would want a gun. My reasoning is that a swordsman is more skilled than a gunman. A sword is also more honorable. When the crossbow came to Europe, archers petitioned the pope who eventually banned it as a weapon of the devil. Same thing with a gun IMO.

So it is up to you to VOTE and DEBATE.
From purely an interest point of view, I much prefer the sword. It is a rather more beautiful weapon and takes greater skill to wield.

However, from a pragmatic standpoint a gun is better, for obvious reasons.

Range.

That's my argument.

If there is a 30-ft chasm between you, a sword is useless. A gun is ideal.

Well, let's put it this way: I own a full Renaissance costume, I sing madrigals, I know half a dozen of Shakespeare's plays nearly by heart, I read classic fantasy like other people read the Bible, and my full first name is a High Elvish word. Take a wild guess which I'd pick.

You sound very interesting indeed, like me. What is your first name? You may notice that my screen name is also in Elvish (it's Sindarin [that's by Tolkien] for Ian which is my name).

I should add that I am a very pragmatic person. Honor-wise, swords are better.

Swords also have the advantage that they don't use ammo.

But the sword as a weapon is probably dead. All talk of power swords is unlikely - they'll use power axes instead.

Unfortuantly honor doesn't matter much once your dead, so currently for combat effectivness a gun is a must, a small sword or knife should be given, though, for close combat and for emergencies.

However, when the gun first came out, the swords and arrows still ruled, and throught until the 1600's the sword was most effective at killing, but the gun had one thing: A big bang. That's what made early guns so effective. And even after guns becmase better, warfare was used with bayonets until the 1800's when bullets came into thier current position (note: This was pionered by the Americans, Who perfected gun perfection ( Hessian Major Baurmiester, who drilled American Soliders at valley forge, noted that American Troops were skilled marksmen))

So when it comes for duels, swords, but for war, guns:sniper:

This thread is full of misinformation

Under 21 feet, if both weapons are holstered then the swordsman does have a decent chance of killing the gunman. Most gunman cannot draw their weapons and fire a shot in the time it takes for the swordsman to close the distance. Look up the "Tuller Drill". It should also be taken into account that handgun bullets are not good at stopping a person instantly

If the guman is trained and practiced, he can draw his gun, sidestep, and fire 2 shots into the swordsman's head.

[QUOTE=Twitch2395]Guns are better for a few reasons

5. Guns are way cooler

7. Guns are highly virsatile(hunting, war, competitions) Someone can't use a sword to hunt, or wage war

8. Sword wounds are much more easily treated than bullet wounds

Reply: 2 out of 3 here show you are a moron. The other shows you are misinformed. First of all you obviously dont know the difference between a fact and an opinon or are enough of an idiot to think a highly subjectable opinion can be used just like a fact to be presented as a reason. Second, swords have been a traditional boar hunting weapon for centuries, and are used in the competitions such as fencing and bull fighthing. And to top all of this all off you must have no concept of surgery what so ever. The wounds are equally aweful to treat but it is more often difficult with swords. Nominally, a bullet will leave only a puncture wound, but can hit and shatter bone. Swords have to cut thru muscles, tendons, and ligaments to do damage and those all present a myriad of surgeries. One last one for you, most body armors today will stop bullets but not stabbing weapons, its all in the physics.

:sniper: Guns offer dignity in death, could you imagine an assassin slashing a world leader into a bloody pulp.No a quick shot to the head and you're happy, he's dead. Everyones happy, wait a minute...........:sniper:

A sword may be more effective at close range, but if the opponent is armed with any sort of firearm and the swordsman hasn't just come round a corner three feet in front of him or something then the swordsman will never get close enough without having smoking holes in him. Hence, the firearm eliminates the opportunity for close combat, making the sword irrelevant. On a side-note, a few inches of point will beat any length of edge, so if the sword is primarily a slashing weapon, a bayonet fixed on a firearm will defeat the user (assuming the bayonet armed person is well trained).

There are certain circumstances where a sword would conquer the gun, and the gun conquer the sword. It also depends on the wielders of both.

I for one, in close range, have beat a friend (he was using a bb gun...) who had a gun and I had my boken. It was closed range though. I ducked beneath his trajectory quickly nocked the barrel of his gun side-ways and then proceded to 'cut' into his head. So from this you can see that at close range it would be a small advantage of a swordsman over a gunman.

However, if the conflict takes place in a wide area (ie a field or open room) then the swordsman had better be thin and muscled to the core so as to try running and dodging until he could come to close courters. However since the gunman has a number of chances of hitting his opponant, then it is unlikely that the swordsman would win. (unless the gunman is stupid enough to have only one clip and an extremely bad shot)

Over all, I would prefer the sword. Its much more quieter in killing your opponent at unawares (I know guns have silencers) and with out much sound other than the blade entering flesh. Not only that but just because I have been trained to use a sword and there is more..."skill' and "technique" to using a sword than that of a gun. I don't remember there being any Olympic shoot-offs.

I do think any proponent of the honourable blade argument has no idea what honor is.

As for practicality, a sword is inferior to a gun, period. There's a reason no one uses swords anymore, and it's a good one.

On a side-note, a few inches of point will beat any length of edge, so if the sword is primarily a slashing weapon, a bayonet fixed on a firearm will defeat the user (assuming the bayonet armed person is well trained).

Not always. Edge vs. Point has been around almost as long as the sword has. Personally, I prefer cuts to thrusts, mainly because, lets face it, if you get hit by any curved sword/sabre, or even a straight blade with an edge geometry for cutting, you are going to know about it.

But its about preference, neither has an ultimate advantage over the other, hence why the debate still carries on...

The sword vs. gun argument comes down to what type of gun and at what range.

An old muzzle loader is hardly a match for a sword at ranges of less then 100', an AK is more effective unless you're within brawling range, at which point your sword might be useless too.

http://www.fido.sakhalin.ru/wayofsword/projects/europe/landsknechte/weapon/zweihander3.jpg
Ahhhh... choices. :D


That looks similar to the Cold Steel replica, but it doens't have a leather cover over the ricasso. You know who made that?

The sword vs. gun argument comes down to what type of gun and at what range.

An old muzzle loader is hardly a match for a sword at ranges of less then 100', an AK is more effective unless you're within brawling range, at which point your sword might be useless too.

Depends, the old muskets, yeah for sure, but a Baker rifle or some old hunting pieces were pretty damned accurate, assuming you were a good shot to begin with, caus if you missed you were left with the rifle, which could, in reasonably trained hands match the sword, but being ill balanced and purely for bludgeoning, wouldn't be great.

The sword vs. gun argument comes down to what type of gun and at what range.

An old muzzle loader is hardly a match for a sword at ranges of less then 100', an AK is more effective unless you're within brawling range, at which point your sword might be useless too.
The musket performs best at ranges under 100 feet, and if you get hit by one of those .69 calibur balls, you WILL know it, unless your wearing a couple of inches of depleted uranium armour.
Thats why the sword gradually died out except for use by officers (and not much, then) on ships (where your enemy was about two feet away anyway) and by cavalry (who could close with infantry before they could get more than a volley off)
And, of course, even IF an enemy did close with you while you had a rifle, the bayonette turned your gun into a handy spear, which, in moderatly skilled hands, easily beats a sword simply by reach.

That looks similar to the Cold Steel replica, but it doens't have a leather cover over the ricasso. You know who made that?

No idea. I pulled it off of Google Image Search. I wouldn't mind owning that particular sword though.

Without special buffer pads along the frame, a supressed pistol still makes a very distinct sound when fired due to the cycleing of the action. Then it is only quite if subsonic ammunition is used.

Still a lot quieter than a regular pistol. And in most cases, it's not a problem with being loud - it's making the pistol make sounds that most people don't recognize as gunfire or a threat.

For suppressed rifles, what counts is obscuring the position of the firer, as rounds that are supersonic (most rifle rounds) will still make a crack - but that crack moves with the bullet. For anyone forward or to the side of the firer, that crack radically distorts where you think the bullets are coming from.

In combat with a suppressed rifle, the behavior you usually see is people in the target area, milling around standing up - they may even argue amongst themselves as to whether or not they are really being attacked, or where they think the fire is coming from.

No idea. I pulled it off of Google Image Search. I wouldn't mind owning that particular sword though.

Yeah, a decent replica should weigh about 5-9lbs, although some historical ones, like at this place (http://www.wallacecollection.org/index.htm) weigh up to 15 1/2lbs. Go to this place (http://swordforum.com/) to learn more.

Not always. Edge vs. Point has been around almost as long as the sword has. Personally, I prefer cuts to thrusts, mainly because, lets face it, if you get hit by any curved sword/sabre, or even a straight blade with an edge geometry for cutting, you are going to know about it.

But its about preference, neither has an ultimate advantage over the other, hence why the debate still carries on...

Point being superior to edge is a very poorly thought out theory from the 1800s where dueling gentlemen carried small swords and rapiers. It is important to note though that actual soldiers of the period carried sabres which are primarily a slashing weapon. The reason being that once you've used a rapier/ small sword it gets stuck in it's oponent, and becomes very difficult to get out, yes it inflicts a more grievous wound, but you're then left trying to pull it out of your oponent, even skilled soldiers such as English Regulars would on the occasion lose the bayonet in someone they'd stabbed. Why the bayonet was so much better was because you could form your troops into square and offer what was in effect massed spears to any charging calvalry.

1) Crossbows were in use in Europe for about 300 years before Pope Urban II banned their use against Christians.

2) The Second Lateran Council furthered this ban to include slings and archeres as well.


Two important points to note on this.

The first is the real reason behind the declaration. The ruling aristocracy of Europe had had a jolly good time for hundreds of years charging around on horses and hacking down peasants who were untrained in their weapons and were in reality lambs to the slaughter. When your peasant was given a crossbow though, after less than a day's training he could kill the most heavily armoured knights in Europe. This was terrible, unthinkable even, that the lower class should be able to slay the nobility, so they exerted political pressure on the Pope to ban the weapon. Ranged weapons are less honourable? Rubbish, that was a cock and bull story made up in a failed attempt to keep Knights as kings of the Battlefield.

The second point is that nobody took any real notice of the Pope, quite simply because crossbows were too useful to give up.

Point being superior to edge is a very poorly thought out theory from the 1800s where dueling gentlemen carried small swords and rapiers. It is important to note though that actual soldiers of the period carried sabres which are primarily a slashing weapon. The reason being that once you've used a rapier/ small sword it gets stuck in it's oponent, and becomes very difficult to get out, yes it inflicts a more grievous wound, but you're then left trying to pull it out of your oponent, even skilled soldiers such as English Regulars would on the occasion lose the bayonet in someone they'd stabbed. Why the bayonet was so much better was because you could form your troops into square and offer what was in effect massed spears to any charging calvalry.

Indeed, and hence why my 15,000 word dissertation at uni is being written on such a topic :D

The point vs edge was quite a popular issue as you rightly state, and almost the entire line of British cavalry sabres/swords (if it ain't curved it ain't a sabre), IMHO were suited to neither (1796 Heavy Cavalry Sword i.e. the one Sharpe uses, is as much use as a crowbar, can't thrust, unless modified, and certainly can't cut)

There were a few exceptions however, such as the 1796 Light Cavalry Sabre, which as a cutting weapon, was excellent, although it has got sod all hand protection. Given that it was copied by virtually all of Europe and saw use in the Navy as well, it was an excellent weapon. Hell, there are even versions used by scottish foot regiments where it was given a basket hilt. Sweet.

As for more grevious wounds, it could be argued both ways as the 1796, katana, "Swiss" Sabre, etc etc, could all inflict incredible wounds, such as hewing limbs and cutting people in two, given the right chance and correct technique.

The last line of swords (1912 pattern) were excellent thrusters, and for cavalry they were brilliant for the charge, where they were basically spears, although the edge geometry made them fairly good cutters too, despite being straight edged.

As for your point about getting a bayonet stuck in an oponent (which i think i mentioned a few pages ago), I can't agree more. Cavalry swords used for thrusting often has cords attaching them to their owners hands so even if grip was lost, they would pull out afterwards (even to the extent where they would break wrists).

Never the less, a wound inflicted by a sword won't always kill, and many duels account for both lives, not just one, as the length of time it takes for one to die means they can kill their opponent as well. I'm trying to find the link to the article on the myth of the quick kill, but i seem to have mislaid it. bugger.

http://www.classicalfencing.com/articles/bloody.shtml

That should answer a few questions about thrusting weapons.

To add to this whole "fragmenting bullets" issue...did you see that Mythbusters episode?

They fired guns into water to find out how deep you have to be to be safe.

Turns out that rifles, assault rifles, and even a 50cal Sniper Rifle can't penetrate water at all. The bullets immediately turn to dust because of the impact.

Pistols and smaller weapons go through though.

Then again that does depend on the bullet fired. Do you know what kind of bullets they fired? Were they soft lead, or armor piercing?

Your logic is flawless :D

Anyways, I know of a person who can deflect bullets with his sword. Not automatic mind you (AK-47), but semi-auto pistols. He did get hit (they were using blanks...), but to his credit, he deflected the first three. It takes impecibly amazing reflex times. The trick isn't to hit the bullet, but to skim it (Bullet directly hitting blade = broken blade).

I like swords better, they have so much more class and style, but if I'm going to a gun fight...

I'm going with an M-16. :D :mp5: Thank god the Assault Weapons Ban expired...
If you're going to pick a gun, at least pick a good one; the m-16 sucks

you got two shots

mind me saying any breastplate armor from the dragoons would reflect that, after all, the shot barrel goes not pack a serious punch.
Gotta disagree with you there...
Firstly: you can figure 5-8 shells in the shotgun
Secondly: a breastplate is not necesarily going to stop a slug, and even if it does the force of impact is going to give the guy with the shotgun a chance at another shot

[QUOTE=Twitch2395]Guns are better for a few reasons

5. Guns are way cooler

7. Guns are highly virsatile(hunting, war, competitions) Someone can't use a sword to hunt, or wage war

8. Sword wounds are much more easily treated than bullet wounds

Reply: 2 out of 3 here show you are a moron. The other shows you are misinformed. First of all you obviously dont know the difference between a fact and an opinon or are enough of an idiot to think a highly subjectable opinion can be used just like a fact to be presented as a reason. Second, swords have been a traditional boar hunting weapon for centuries, and are used in the competitions such as fencing and bull fighthing. And to top all of this all off you must have no concept of surgery what so ever. The wounds are equally aweful to treat but it is more often difficult with swords. Nominally, a bullet will leave only a puncture wound, but can hit and shatter bone. Swords have to cut thru muscles, tendons, and ligaments to do damage and those all present a myriad of surgeries. One last one for you, most body armors today will stop bullets but not stabbing weapons, its all in the physics.

Then you must not know anything about bullets. Answer this, is a straight gash, which would be the result of a sword wound or two wounds, an entry wound and exit wound. The exit wound would be at least twice as large as the entry wound and would be a random shape. Now which one would be easier to close, a straight gash, or a large circular hole.

Also which of the two weapons will be more likely to kill instantly, gun.

Reason #5 is my opinion not fact you retard.

When was the last time a soldier in a modern military used a sword?(besides the Japanese in WW2, even though they usually did not use them as weapons) If my army had guns and your army had swords, who would win??? I would hands down.

The body armor thing is wrong also, most body armor (namely the armor used by the US Military) have ceramic aor steel plates in them so they could stop a sword.

So don't call me a moron

If you're going to pick a gun, at least pick a good one; the m-16 sucks

The m-16 is an amazing gun! Why do you think is sucks???

Okay, from a distance of 30 feet or less-- I'd probably side with the guy with the sword. Unless that pistol's in your hand already, the sword guy is probably going to beat you to the first hit.
Not bragging here, but assuming that both of us have our weapons sheathed/holstered (you have the sword and I have the gun {9mm Beretta}), we could be 5 feet apart and you'd still be dead, that is unless you can draw your sword and attack in 1 second.

The gun is more powerfull than the sword, and this was proven in WW2 when the Japanese attempted their bonzai charges and got mowed down.

The m-16 is an amazing gun! Why do you think is sucks???
Becvause I've used it. It's fragile, easily jammed and fires a completely inadequate cartridge.

As my poor friend can attest, do not bring a knife to a gun fight...

http://img177.echo.cx/img177/5742/owned4ws.jpg

On a serious note, those who claim a gun requires no skill to shoot has never shot one.
I disagree, I am proficent in many forms of firearms and other arsenal. I can train a monkey you nail you from 900 yards. I can't train a monkey to sucessfully wield a sword.

Plus you also take into account that in this day and age the sword is a weapon long forgotten. The fear factor of a sword is great, even a skilled gunman would stagger at a warriors charge. Plus, unless we are dealing with an idiot, the swordsman would know what he/she was doing. Dodging a bullet is cake, just dont be where the barrel is. And once up close, the gun is at a terrible disadvantage. Plus, i can take you out with a sword and no one would know. Use a gun, even with silencer, and the world knows.

Not bragging here, but assuming that both of us have our weapons sheathed/holstered (you have the sword and I have the gun {9mm Beretta}), we could be 5 feet apart and you'd still be dead, that is unless you can draw your sword and attack in 1 second.

btw, i can do it. and break your beretta with it. it only takes .03 to draw a katana. takes about a second to draw a gun. not to mention remove the saftey.

My friend and I were debating over whether a sword is better than a gun. I said I would prefer a sword to a gun, he said swords are stupid and would want a gun. My reasoning is that a swordsman is more skilled than a gunman. A sword is also more honorable. When the crossbow came to Europe, archers petitioned the pope who eventually banned it as a weapon of the devil. Same thing with a gun IMO.

So it is up to you to VOTE and DEBATE.

When a sword won't do, go gun-fu.

http://www.freewebs.com/equilibrium-movie/JPPrestonshootingMD.JPG

I disagree, I am proficent in many forms of firearms and other arsenal. I can train a monkey you nail you from 900 yards. I can't train a monkey to sucessfully wield a sword.

Plus you also take into account that in this day and age the sword is a weapon long forgotten. The fear factor of a sword is great, even a skilled gunman would stagger at a warriors charge. Plus, unless we are dealing with an idiot, the swordsman would know what he/she was doing. Dodging a bullet is cake, just dont be where the barrel is. And once up close, the gun is at a terrible disadvantage. Plus, i can take you out with a sword and no one would know. Use a gun, even with silencer, and the world knows.
History shows otherwise. For every lucky swordsman who sneaks up from behind and stabs the careless gunman, there have been countless incidents of tiny groups of soldiers armed with guns massacring hordes of primitive enemies armed with swords and spears. A single gunman might be afraid, but a small disciplined formation of gunmen can take out a huge charge of poorly equipped enemies without flinching. Even when it is a close quarters combat between a person with a modern automatic firearm and a person with a sword/knife, a sane person will prefer to be the person with the gun.

btw, i can do it. and break your beretta with it. it only takes .03 to draw a katana. takes about a second to draw a gun. not to mention remove the saftey.
You could do it only in a couple situations, such as if your opponent had an obese and nearsighted condition. In most real world situations the sword is useless.

You could do it only in a couple situations, such as if your opponent had an obese and nearsighted condition. In most real world situations the sword is useless.

When you say 'most real world situations', I'll assume you mean 'most combat situations involving firearms', because otherwise a sword in the hands of a trained fighter could be quite useful. As in: a swordsman will probably beat a weaponless man, a swordsman could likely beat a guy with a lead pipe. That sort of thing.

When you say 'most real world situations', I'll assume you mean 'most combat situations involving firearms'
Yeah, it is safe to make that assumption counsidering the topic of discussion.

Play Halo and you wil find that a sword would be better if you could live longer through stuff like steroids, armour, and actual fitness and health. You also have to take to account That you have the upperhand by, the element of suprise, and to have that you must also have speed and good reflexes. So it takes more muscle and science in the human body for swords to work. But guns require less of that and is easier to handle (but don't get me wrong guns do require good aim, a quality hard found naturaly and requires much practice) so in conclusion if you are less experienced in the art of war use a gun. IF you are like a world renown assasin who can kill Saddam, Hilter, Ceaser, Pres. Bush, and Master Chief (if they were in the same time peroids) in one day go ahead kill that stupid son of a gun Pres. Bush and enjoy him suffer.

I go with gun.

Who gives a care about what is "honorable", or more "skillful", if my life were on the line, I'd pick up a trust AK over a sword anyday. That way, when my opponent is charging at me with his Katana raised high, I can fired a clip of bullets at him, and *thud*, he's dead.

Also, guns are just cooler than swords. Although, explosives are the coolest of the bunch...

You know what would be cool. A gun that shoots out swords, and then you could pick up the sword and use on the enemy. Not that great if the enemy uses the swords on you though.:sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper:
:sniper: :sniper: :sniper::gundge: :gundge:

btw, i can do it. and break your beretta with it. it only takes .03 to draw a katana. takes about a second to draw a gun. not to mention remove the saftey.
Human reaction speed doesn't operate on the level of .03 second, unless you're counting blinking. And, let's say I'm pulling a Glock, there's no safety on the Glock.

When the crossbow came to Europe, archers petitioned the pope who eventually banned it as a weapon of the devil. Same thing with a gun IMO.

I think that the fact that crossbows enabled ordinary men to kill armored knights had something to do with it becomming banned ...

From a practical standpoint, in most situations, a gun is unquestionably more effective than a sword. There are a very few situations in which a sword would be better.

I just like swords, though, so I voted for that. I don't expect to ever actually take part in a battle.

Yeah, it is safe to make that assumption counsidering the topic of discussion.

Just making sure.

I don't really want to read through 13 pages, but here's my two cents.

A sword is more honorable, but in today's society, the gun is far more practical.

I don't really want to read through 13 pages, but here's my two cents.

A sword is more honorable, but in today's society, the gun is far more practical.

Actually, two suggestions:

1) pack a nice Glock semi-auto and a blade (now in this case, go with a short blade, they tend to be a bit faster); and

2) come up from behind on your target. If they hear you before you get close enough, pop them in the head with a serious case of lead poisoning and practicality is served; otherwise, slink up right behind them and sink the gladius in between their shoulder blades, and thus honor is served.

(No I suppose the last part isn't true, but for those of us who've played Shadowrun, honor is.... optional. Yeah yeah!)

btw, i can do it. and break your beretta with it. it only takes .03 to draw a katana. takes about a second to draw a gun. not to mention remove the saftey.
How's about my high-powered rifle at 600 yds, with laser scope? You gonna chop that one up too?:sniper:

And by the way, if you answered 'sword' to this question, two words:

Rorke's Drift
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rorke%27s_Drift

When you say 'most real world situations', I'll assume you mean 'most combat situations involving firearms', because otherwise a sword in the hands of a trained fighter could be quite useful. As in: a swordsman will probably beat a weaponless man, a swordsman could likely beat a guy with a lead pipe. That sort of thing.


So what you're saying is GET A BETTER WEAPON. Ergo, GET A GUN.:mp5:

I prefer to go stealth. Guns and Swords both contain a great deal of metal, while a blow dart can be made entirely of wood, with the needle being plastic. This helps for getting it wherever you need to get it :) . Blow darts are also very versatile - they can range from knocking the target out for a few hours, to killing within minutes. Blow darts have a good range (not as much as some guns), but leave no gunpowder residue or bullet signature. Most importantly, buying a weapon draws attention to you, and can get you on the the watchlist for whichever 3 letter abbreviation for a government agency. Blow darts, however, can be homemade out of materials you can find around the house, buy at home depot, or get from chemistry suppliers without as much attention.

But, if I had to choose, I would take the sword. It just looks so much küler when you stab someone in the back than when you shoot them in the back.

Just kidding of course... killing is wrong, unless its a conservative political leader.

Is this poll going to be used by the NRA for political gain?

When a sword won't do, go gun-fu.

http://www.freewebs.com/equilibrium-movie/JPPrestonshootingMD.JPG

For the record, Equalibrium was an awesome movie.

Much as I highly enjoy swordplay (I love to watch mediæval-set movies, Shakespeare's history plays, fencing matches, etc.), if it came down to a matter of preserving my life, I would choose the gun--at least for short term considerations. One valuable point swords have in their favour is that they have no need of ammunition.

The question of honour is moot with me. I would sooner be a live coward than a dead hero. I could die for a cause, but not for some meaningless invention like 'honour.'

But, if I had to choose, I would take the sword. It just looks so much küler when you stab someone in the back than when you shoot them in the back.


Stabbing someone in the back is always a bad idea. More often than not, the blade in question gets caught by the ribs and becomes difficult to dislodge. Through the stomach and up under the ribs is the way to go.

Can I have a Halberd (I prefer them to a sword, I don't ave te co-rdination r te depth perception for a sword or a gwun)

Some random thoughts...

Just as a gun can be pointed and fired with little skill, a sword can be swung without ever having touched one before. They both require practice and skill to use properly.

Some guy said earlier that a katana can be drawn in .03 seconds and a gun takes a second or some shit like that... I'm wondering, in which anime did it say this? Remember, a pistols draw time is measured by how long it takes to get the first shot off - i.e., how long it takes to put the first bullet into your opponent. A slide safety is deactivated by the user as the pistol clears its holster; and what is more, the weapon only has to clear 5" of leather. A katana is how long?

A wound inflicted by a sword, IF properly used, is more greivous than any pistol can inflict. Dismemberment > holes

A pistol can deliver more wounds, faster; for example, a sword could take off someones arm, completely. In the same time, it is likely that a shooter could hit someone in the arm, and then get a few shots off into the targets center of mass.

Standing face to face, within a distance of two or three feet, with the pistol levelled and the sword coming down for a killing blow, both fighters are dead.

Standing 5 feet apart, with the pistol level and the swordsman charging for a kill, it is likely both will be killed.

Standing at a distance of 10 feet, a shot to the head or repeat hits to the heart and lungs from the pistol is going to end this particular encounter. Ditto at greater distances.

Rifles > pistols

Long story short... gimmie an AK with a magazine full of hollowpoints. And put a bayonet on the end.

btw, i can do it. and break your beretta with it. it only takes .03 to draw a katana. takes about a second to draw a gun. not to mention remove the saftey.
Actually, you can draw a pistol, release safety and put 3 accurate shots into the target in just over a second if you know what you're doing.

History shows otherwise. For every lucky swordsman who sneaks up from behind and stabs the careless gunman, there have been countless incidents of tiny groups of soldiers armed with guns massacring hordes of primitive enemies armed with swords and spears. A single gunman might be afraid, but a small disciplined formation of gunmen can take out a huge charge of poorly equipped enemies without flinching. Even when it is a close quarters combat between a person with a modern automatic firearm and a person with a sword/knife, a sane person will prefer to be the person with the gun.

Very correct. In order to demonstrate the superiority of the firearm over the melee weapon one only needs to look at the Battles of Rorke's Drift (100 British Regulars defeated 4000 Zulu warriors with the loss of 17 men to 470+) or Omdurman (10,000 Dervishes dead, 16,000 wounded, and 5,000 prisoners to 48 English dead and 382 wounded). Both these battles we are talking about bolt action rifles. A modern assault rifle would make the difference even greater.

When we're all sitting on a computer in a nice warm house, a gun seems (and probably is) better. But plunged into a warzone, if you have a scoped 12.7mm PTRD n' tripe that costs £10,000, it won't make a shit of difference if you've got no bullets. Reliability comes over accuracy and power ALWAYS. Take Vietnam, the two standard rifles: M16A1 vs. AKM. The AK always wins because the crappy plastic A1's just get sand in them, and then it's three weeks in the artificers' office before it fires again. A sword never falls apart or runs out of ammo.

In WWI, troops were the best in the world (better than today). They were late enough in history to still value armed close combat and late enough to be excellent shots with the old Lee-Enfield/Mauser/Lebel/Moisin or whatever. The latest American M16 (the A3) has no bayonet detatchment. I bet some Marines in Baghdad could do with a bayonet in those dark, crowded alleyways when the clip goes dry, but it's not the're any more...

Can I have a Halberd (I prefer them to a sword, I don't ave te co-rdination r te depth perception for a sword or a gwun)
Have at Fiend!

Do you have the co-ordination to swing a spiked stick?

On UFO: Aftershock the katana is more accurate and powerful than many guns, and as its not got a damage type it ignores most armour, so in this instance (a totally unrealistic instance of course) it is more effective than a gun.

Have at Fiend!

Do you have the co-ordination to swing a spiked stick?

okay can I have a load of people with me with full shields and Halberd as well. Time to Push Pike Lads.

I didn't know the M-16 didn't ave a bayonet attachmet, I remember when they were designing te SA80 system to replace the SLR the bayonet was specifically requested as it's primary role (and one of the reasons for removing the SLR) was to be used in FIBUA and the SLR with it 7.62 was just too fecking powerful for anti terrorist (NI) ops

I like both, so I choose archery since it involves the most skill

okay can I have a load of people with me with full shields and Halberd as well. Time to Push Pike Lads.

I didn't know the M-16 didn't ave a bayonet attachmet, I remember when they were designing te SA80 system to replace the SLR the bayonet was specifically requested as it's primary role (and one of the reasons for removing the SLR) was to be used in FIBUA and the SLR with it 7.62 was just too fecking powerful for anti terrorist (NI) ops
Ye fan-dangled words hold no sway with me my Cutlass and Blunderbuss shall carry the day!

Have at!

as some of the people before me have said it would be crap to have a sword in a gun world

however if you dwelve into the anime/manga world, people with swords usually have special powers like it's invisible and can extend to any length and they can deflect bullets with it,

personally i'd prefer the sword it's just pure cool, unless i had duel pistols which are more powerful than an ak47 which is also cool

but in the practical world where you can't dodge bullets and much less deflect bullets (can a high calibre bullet snap a sword that's folded over 200 times?), i'd prefer to have a ranged weapon, ie gun :sniper:

How about a proper duel, Trebuchets at Dawn. Bring your own Rock.

If tey changed the law in the UK, so that I could carry a Gun or a Sword, I would definately carry a Sword. (I'm not sure But I tink you actually can as long as it is on display and is in its scabbard) or a spiked morning star Flail (because tey have to be the coolest looking medieval melee weapon (although a fekking big war Axe is quite funky as well)

as some of the people before me have said it would be crap to have a sword in a gun world

however if you dwelve into the anime/manga world, people with swords usually have special powers like it's invisible and can extend to any length and they can deflect bullets with it,

personally i'd prefer the sword it's just pure cool, unless i had duel pistols which are more powerful than an ak47 which is also cool

but in the practical world where you can't dodge bullets and much less deflect bullets (can a high calibre bullet snap a sword that's folded over 200 times?), i'd prefer to have a ranged weapon, ie gun :sniper:
Dual Desert Eagles <drool>... If you could lift them of course.

btw, i can do it. and break your beretta with it. it only takes .03 to draw a katana. takes about a second to draw a gun. not to mention remove the saftey.

Wait a sec, you're claiming that you can break a gun with a sword? :rolleyes:

C'mon, at least learn the laws of physics before you claim such nonsense. No matter how sharp the sword, you will not break the gun with it, despite what you see in films etc.

And as already said, a proficient trained user of a pistol can draw and shoot sometimes up to 3 shots within the time it takes to draw and cut with any sword with the strength required to kill someone.

uh, guys, uh, I think you're thinking which is a better weapon. He asked which was cooler. I love rapiers and katanas. As for guns, my favorite is the 1860s navy colt.

indiana jones solved this question.

Lol that scene was the best ever

Wait a sec, you're claiming that you can break a gun with a sword? :rolleyes:

C'mon, at least learn the laws of physics before you claim such nonsense. No matter how sharp the sword, you will not break the gun with it, despite what you see in films etc.

And as already said, a proficient trained user of a pistol can draw and shoot sometimes up to 3 shots within the time it takes to draw and cut with any sword with the strength required to kill someone.
Er, it depends on what gun it is. I do believe that you could do that to some guns. A katana, is, after all, SHARP.

Er, it depends on what gun it is. I do believe that you could do that to some guns. A katana, is, after all, SHARP.

No, you simply can't do that to a gun. A sword with heat treated steel (folded or otherwise), no matter how sharp against gun metal (which is built to take the massive pressure of firing a cartridge), might make a mark, but it will not cut through it. Sharpness has not a lot to do with it. The most that that will achieve is damaging the katana blade and destroying a perfectly good sword.

If you want to cut a gun you need to heat it up then go at it with a bloody big chisel and a hammer. You CANNOT do it with a sword.

To find out more visit here. (http://www.swordforum.com)

Your logic is flawless :D

Anyways, I know of a person who can deflect bullets with his sword. Not automatic mind you (AK-47), but semi-auto pistols. He did get hit (they were using blanks...), but to his credit, he deflected the first three. It takes impecibly amazing reflex times. The trick isn't to hit the bullet, but to skim it (Bullet directly hitting blade = broken blade).

I like swords better, they have so much more class and style, but if I'm going to a gun fight...

I'm going with an M-16. :D :mp5: Thank god the Assault Weapons Ban expired...

Yeah, he can deflect bullets. The fuck ever.

Wouldn't the bullet be more likely to not result in slow n' painful death? Depending on what it hits (or doesn't hit)? As compared to the likelihood of death by disembowlment.
In the old west, when you shot someone (UNLIKE in the movies) they didn't die right away. In a lot gunfights, both contestants were wounded or killed.

Someone should try deflecting paintballs.

Cutting abilities of a Katana (http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.php?threadid=59292&highlight=Katana+cutting+ability)

Not exactly a totally scientific approach, but these guys are historians and blacksmiths so can provide a decent answer.

The methods and theory of cutting with a sword (http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.php?threadid=49143&highlight=Katana+cutting+ability)

My friend and I were debating over whether a sword is better than a gun

There shouldn't have been a debate at all. The firearm is vastly superior to the blade. If you can not comprehend this, then there's something really wrong in your head.

I bet trying to explain it would be like speaking with a UFOlogist or a kid believing in Santa--they simply want to believe so bad, they won't accept any of the logic/science.

Anyways, I know of a person who can deflect bullets with his sword. Not automatic mind you (AK-47), but semi-auto pistols. He did get hit (they were using blanks...), but to his credit, he deflected the first three. It takes impecibly amazing reflex times. The trick isn't to hit the bullet, but to skim it (Bullet directly hitting blade = broken blade).

$1,000 American dollars says that this is a lie.

In the old west, when you shot someone (UNLIKE in the movies) they didn't die right away. In a lot gunfights, both contestants were wounded or killed.

Yeah, I realize that slow n' painful deaths will happen with both sorts of weapons, and that movies play up the fragility of humans.

Though what I'd like to know is what the ratios would be for instant/quick deaths to slow deaths to survivable injuries for guns and swords respectively. Leaving out minor injuries, like grazes and scratches.

who cares about honour just blow the ther guys head off with a shotgun:sniper:

Yeah, I realize that slow n' painful deaths will happen with both sorts of weapons, and that movies play up the fragility of humans.

Though what I'd like to know is what the ratios would be for instant/quick deaths to slow deaths to survivable injuries for guns and swords respectively. Leaving out minor injuries, like grazes and scratches.

It would be interesting to see for sure, but given the real lack of statistics for sword fights, duelling etc, and given that archeological evidence doesn't provide the whole picture when it comes to sword wounds, i doubt that these figures will ever exist.

who cares about honour just blow the ther guys head off with a shotgun:sniper:
agreed

It would be interesting to see for sure, but given the real lack of statistics for sword fights, duelling etc, and given that archeological evidence doesn't provide the whole picture when it comes to sword wounds, i doubt that these figures will ever exist.

Sadly. Though I'm sure somebody could make an educated guess, with some vague degree of accuracy based on how much damage being hit with what where does.

who cares about honour just blow the ther guys head off with a shotgun:sniper:

I disagree, a shotgun would get blood in your face. A sword would do that a lot less, and is cooler and more impressive.

what if you were challenged to a duel and had to choose the weapons, which would you pick, assuming you had equal skill with either?

Sadly. Though I'm sure somebody could make an educated guess, with some vague degree of accuracy based on how much damage being hit with what where does.

Well, given that a sword injury could vary from a broken bone to a split artery, concussion or simple shock i think that even an educated guess would provide a false view of sword injuries that led to deaths. Although, it would be interesting if it were possible. I've done a fair amount of research in conjunction with my dissertation, and i believe that the great majority of sword related deaths would not come from a single cut, but from a variety of smaller wounds, esp in melee combat. In a duel I believe it would be different, although I would need to do more reading on that.

As for guns i don't know, but i am sure police reports etc could provide a decent report on gun related injuries causing deaths.

I disagree, a shotgun would get blood in your face. A sword would do that a lot less, and is cooler and more impressive.

You hit an artery, you're gonna get blood all over the place. Swords aren't gonna be clean, although, less mess than a shotgun.

Guns for show, knives for a pro

what if you were challenged to a duel and had to choose the weapons, which would you pick, assuming you had equal skill with either?

I presume you mean in a duel where both combatents would be similarly armed? If so, i'd always take a sword, simply because the chances in this modern world are, I would have more skill than the other person. The gun wasn't nicknamed the "Equalizer" for nothing.

Well, given that a sword injury could vary from a broken bone to a split artery, concussion or simple shock i think that even an educated guess would provide a false view of sword injuries that led to deaths. Although, it would be interesting if it were possible. I've done a fair amount of research in conjunction with my dissertation, and i believe that the great majority of sword related deaths would not come from a single cut, but from a variety of smaller wounds, esp in melee combat. In a duel I believe it would be different, although I would need to do more reading on that.

As for guns i don't know, but i am sure police reports etc could provide a decent report on gun related injuries causing deaths.

Someday, when I win the lottery, I'm going to fund the 'Finding Out How Things Hurt And Kill People' project.

I presume you mean in a duel where both combatents would be similarly armed? If so, i'd always take a sword, simply because the chances in this modern world are, I would have more skill than the other person. The gun wasn't nicknamed the "Equalizer" for nothing.


Same here. Oddly enough swords duels were often not fatal.

If you've ever seen the movie The Duellists, that was based on real people, who duelled each other about 17 times, with different weapons, and neither one killed the other.

Someday, when I win the lottery, I'm going to fund the 'Finding Out How Things Hurt And Kill People' project.

Well i have a few ideas....give me blades and give me....erm..... test subjects I am sure I can solve the problems for you

Same here. Oddly enough swords duels were often not fatal.

If you've ever seen the movie The Duellists, that was based on real people, who duelled each other about 17 times, with different weapons, and neither one killed the other.

That is an excellent film, and pretty much one of the best for 19th Century sword fighting. The duels are really well filmed.

Indeed sword duels were often not fatal, the phrase "too first blood" comes from duelling. However, if a fight was to the death, it inveriably was.

There shouldn't have been a debate at all. The firearm is vastly superior to the blade. If you can not comprehend this, then there's something really wrong in your head.

I bet trying to explain it would be like speaking with a UFOlogist or a kid believing in Santa--they simply want to believe so bad, they won't accept any of the logic/science.



$1,000 American dollars says that this is a lie.


Me too

Also how can you be hit/deflect blanks???

Me too

Also how can you be hit/deflect blanks???

Don't some blanks use plastic coverings where the acutal bullet connects to the casing?

Thus once its fired the plastic comes out the end, so in effect his mate was standing in front of a ultra powerful BB gun. Nice thinking...can you say "Darwin Award"? :D

$1,000 American dollars says that this is a lie.

I do not know about the reflexes bit, but I've seen the videos of where a katana was used to cut bullets down in midflight. The sword was affixed with a clamp as was the berreta so that the bullets would always strike the edge of the sword. The bullet was cut in two and the sword got a dent in the edge.

The firearms guy was put out at the apparent failure of his gun so he upped the ante. Since the smith said he was only allowed one pull of the trigger, he used the M2 .50 cal machinegun next. That one pull turned out to be a belt full of .50 cal bullets.

The sword got broken, but not before it managed to cut 6-7 bullets if I remember correctly.

I do not know about the reflexes bit, but I've seen the videos of where a katana was used to cut bullets down in midflight. The sword was affixed with a clamp as was the berreta so that the bullets would always strike the edge of the sword. The bullet was cut in two and the sword got a dent in the edge.

The firearms guy was put out at the apparent failure of his gun so he upped the ante. Since the smith said he was only allowed one pull of the trigger, he used the M2 .50 cal machinegun next. That one pull turned out to be a belt full of .50 cal bullets.

The sword got broken, but not before it managed to cut 6-7 bullets if I remember correctly.

Yup, one way to spoil a sword. Needless to say, given that the composition of the actual bullet, it is not suprising. Skill with the revolver early last century was frequently shown by splitting bullets on the blade of an axe. Needless to say, if the guy with .50 shot at the sword side on, then the sword will be well and truly screwed. Esp. with a stiff blade like a Kat. Nice cutting sword but no give (not like you were meant to make contact in the first place...cutting metal with a Kat is a no no, unless its soft lead i.e bullets...)

Needless to say, you could repeat that trick with any well made sharp sword so its not special caus its a Katana...

If I cared about honor I wouldn't be killing you with a weapon that kills in under a second.
You probably don't have the cahones to cleave some one in half any way. Guns are for the weak.

You probably don't have the cahones to cleave some one in half any way. Guns are for the weak.
No, that's not true either.

Whether you're using a gun at close range or a knife, and your close enough to see his eyes and see what he had for breakfast on his teeth, killing a person is not something everyone can do.

Make the distance just a bit greater, where it's harder to see the face, and people don't have much trouble at all, as long as they don't use a scope. Put the scope back on, and some people have trouble.

Though I believe that guns are far superior weapons to swords I think the coolest sword is the Roman Gladius.

You probably don't have the cahones to cleave some one in half any way. Guns are for the weak.

Well I tend to doubt you "have the cahones" either