Tag Archives: firearms

Q&A: Gunshot Wounds

When it comes to gunshot wounds, are there any places that are “less lethal” than others to be hit or is it all fair game for ending up fatal? Like, would a shot to the shoulder be less serious than a shot to the knee or something like that?

I know what you’re fishing for here, but no. There is no, “less than lethal” way to put a bullet in someone. There are more dangerous places to get hit, but there’s no way to safely shoot someone.

There are less than lethal munitions, such as beanbag rounds and riot slugs, but these are still dangerous.

Shooting someone in the limbs tends to permanently mangle that limb. So, while getting shot in the hand is less immediately dangerous than a round center mass, it will destroy that hand, without surgical reconstruction. Same goes for that knee example; you can kneecap someone, but they’re never walking again. That’s, “see, my character isn’t a bad person, they’re just a sadist,” territory.

Gunshots can kill. The bullet will rip apart tissue in ways your body can’t really handle, and, without medical attention, you will bleed to death. Getting shot in the hand or foot can still kill you, it’s just easier to cram a rag in the wound to staunch the bleeding.

There are places that are more lethal. Center mass, so your torso, primarily your heart and lungs. Take a bullet there, and you’ll quickly die. It is, technically survivable, but you need immediate medical aid. Shot in the head and you’re dead (most of the time.) (Technically, head shots are only fatal about 98% of the time, so there’s a chance. I’ve called this, “surprisingly survivable,” before, and it is.)

Of course, when bullets travel together, the results on a person are far worse. The real metric here is how much blood you lose. Lose to much and you die. So, if one hole gets you bleeding, several will speed up the process. Multiple gunshot wounds are no joke. Even with paramedics on the scene, you might not make it.

Also, because, again this about blood loss, nicking or severing an artery is very bad news. That’s your limbs. Take a hit in the shoulder and you could be fine, or it could nick the axillary artery, and you’re dead in minutes.

Guns aren’t safe. There’s no safe way to shoot someone. Bury a slug in the meat, and people can survive. There’s no one shot and down, outside of maybe a headshot, but there’s no such thing as shooting to wound. You shoot someone, you’re taking a real risk that they’ll never get back up.

Now, I alluded to this with the comment about head shots, but humans are remarkably resilient. Stuff that should kill us, sometimes doesn’t. So, while there’s no safe way to shoot someone, it’s entirely possible someone might manage to cling to life after taking five or six shots in the chest. Or they could bleed to death from a shot to the wrist.

It’s not possible to predict where a bullet will end up, at least not in real-time. Bullets can ricochet off bone and bounce in unexpected directions, or shatter spraying shrapnel around inside the victim. This stuff gets messy fast.

Best circumstance is the bullet goes in, and comes out “clean.” It doesn’t hit bone, doesn’t destroy anything vital. A wound like that is very manageable. Not, “good,” it can still kill you, but you have the most margin for error. Everything else goes down hill from there.

-Starke

This blog is supported through Patreon. If you enjoy our content, please consider becoming a Patron. Every contribution helps keep us online, and writing. If you already are a Patron, thank you.

Q&A: Blanks

How harmless or lethal are blanks? Would they still hurt you if you were to fire them from a close enough range at someone?

It depends on the ranges, but blanks can kill.

So, when we’re talking about injuries and deaths from firearms, the focus is, somewhat obviously, on the bullet. That’s reasonable, the bullet is the most dangerous part of the equation, but it’s not the only danger.

Gunpowder doesn’t, technically, explode, it simply burns very energetically. This means there’s a lot of hot gasses, and burning particulate matter ejected from the barrel. Anything that doesn’t make it out of the barrel (called fouling) needs to be cleaned periodically.

This is an important, and often overlooked detail, conventional firearms are dirty and messy weapons. Modern powders burn cleaner than black powder, but this is still nasty, corrosive, stuff. This is why cleaning your gun is important, and why guns became significantly more mechanically complex after the invention of cordite. As well as after each new iteration of propellants.

Gunpowder at the point of ignition burns somewhere north of three thousand degrees Fahrenheit. (Above 1800C.) Now, it doesn’t stay at those temperatures for long, but it does release rapidly expanding, extremely hot gasses. Those can result in severe burns, at extremely close ranges (read: several inches.) Pressing a gun, loaded with blanks against someone and firing it will result in some pretty horrific wounds. This is because the expanding gasses will be forced into the victim, resulting in a star pattern tear in the victim’s skin, significant internal disruption, and burns.

Second, the bullet is not the only projectile a gun will eject. Wadding will also be sent down range. In the case of shotguns, wadding is critical for getting the shot moving. However, in the case of blanks, the wadding is vital for keeping the blank from simply dumping it’s load out the front of the cartridge. This isn’t usually much of a consideration because it’s fairly light weight, and doesn’t tend to go very far before physics catches up with it, but if you’re struck by it when the gun is an inch or two away from your body, it’s still moving quite rapidly, and while the mass is quite low, it will still have some significant force behind it.

All of this is short range, gunshot burns usually end around 3 feet from the gun, though stray particles of burning powder can travel father. So, generally, blanks are, “safe” if you’re more than a few feet from the target. However, for something like a mock execution (where someone puts the gun to the back of another’s head), they can kill.

Unfortunately, there have been more than a few on stage deaths that were the result of actors fooling around with blanks. One example is Jon-Erik Hexum, who started playing Russian roulette with a blank cartridge on the set of Cover Up. The blank blew a hole in his skull, and the resulting bone chip was forced through his brain, killing him.

There are other tools to simulate a gunshot at close ranges, but it’s not as simple as loading blanks into a functional firearm.

Also worth noting that blanks can propel debris in the barrel with as much force as a normal gunshot. The common example are some nail guns, which use blank cartridges to propel the nail into wood.

The more tragic example is the death of Brandon Lee. While shooting The Crow, Michael Massee’s character used a .44 magnum revolver (a S&W Model 629.) The gun had been loaded with blanks. For the scene where his character murders Brandon Lee’s. The problem was in the prop.

The 629 had previously been used in a series of close ups. The production had created dummy rounds, but dismantling live .44 cartridges, and removing the powder, then reassembling the bullets. This left the primers intact. Something that is not an issue with commercially produced dummy rounds, that exist specifically for situations like this.

After shooting the close ups, the prop master dry fired the revolver before removing the handmade dummy shells, and never examined them to determine their condition. There’s so many things wrong with this, but I’ll condense to the important detail, the primer for the round in the chamber migrated the bullet into the barrel where it came to rest. After that, without ever inspecting the barrel, or really examining the weapon, the prop master loaded it with blanks.

When Michael Massee was supposed to fire a blank at Brandon Lee, the bullet in the barrel was ejected, killing him.

Blanks still simulate a gunshot. It’s, “safe,” if you’re careful. But, get close enough, and these can do some singularly horrific things.

If the point of the question was, “can people screw around with them and live?” Yeah, or they can die. There’s a range of possible outcomes, few of them pleasant.

If the point of the question was, “is there any truth to that, the actor gets killed by a blank?” Yeah, that does happen. With just enough frequency to be depressing. Brandon Lee’s death was tragic, but the number of moving parts that created that tragedy was unusual. There are plenty of actors, like Hexum, who have killed themselves or others by mishandling props because, “it’s just a blank.”

-Starke

This blog is supported through Patreon. If you enjoy our content, please consider becoming a Patron. Every contribution helps keep us online, and writing. If you already are a Patron, thank you.

Q&A: Bullet Drop

Where do snipers tend to aim when they are going for a kill? Are they more inclined to aim for the head or do they take the easier shot and try for the heart?

Usually, above the target, and ahead of them if they’re moving.

We’ve talked about bullet drop before, but the basic concept is that the bullet is a physical object, and affected by gravity. The scope will be zeroed to a specific distance. For example, it might be zeroed for 50m, 200m, whatever. If you’re aiming at ranges closer than that, the scope will be slightly too low, if it’s beyond that range, the scope will be calibrated too high. In either case, a sniper can adjust, and this is the entire purpose of the striations in a rifle scope. These will represent the drop over a fixed distance. Combine that with a rangefinder (if the range is not known), and an experienced sniper will, likely, be aiming over their target’s head at long ranges.

How much the bullet will drop depends on the cartridge and rifle being used. This is part of why snipers are very possessive of their rifles.

This creates a situation where, at long ranges, even if you know the exact range, it is safer to go for a body shot if the option is there.

The second part of where they aim is “leading” the target. Again, a bullet is a physical object, and while it’s moving very fast, it’s still going to take time to travel to the target. If the target is moving the sniper needs to account for that and aim where the target’s path will intersect with the bullet, rather than aiming for where the target is currently.

Additionally, wind and other factors can affect the bullet’s flight path, particularly at longer ranges, meaning that the sniper needs to account for those as well.

So, where do they aim? Not at the target. They’re aiming somewhere in the general vicinity of the target, based on the physics involved.

As for where they want the bullet to connect? Headshots are flashy, but center of mass shots are far more reliable. At that point, it’s a personal choice by the shooter, which they’re going for.

-Starke

This blog is supported through Patreon. If you enjoy our content, please consider becoming a Patron. Every contribution helps keep us online, and writing. If you already are a Patron, thank you.

Q&A: Parrying Gunshots

I’ve seen this a few times but how possible is it really to deflect a bullet with a bladed weapon?

redironsword

Nope. Or, at least, not intentionally.

There’s two problems: Physiology and Physics.

First, your reflexes aren’t that good. I don’t mean, you personally, I mean it’s well beyond human reflexes. Depending on the bullet, it’s likely traveling faster than the speed of sound, meaning, your brain isn’t wired up to see the bullet itself, to say nothing of intentionally parrying it.

Even if you could, you’d need to accelerate your blade to superhuman speeds to get it into position. Even if you could, you can’t see where the bullet will be.

So, without superpowers, no, not at all.

Incidentally, this is also why you can’t dodge bullets. You also can’t dodge sniper fire because the bullet will get there before the gunshot, if you were wondering. Same problem applies if you wanted to parry a marksman’s bullet.

This is where physics screws you. Strictly speaking, a bullet could deflect off a blade, or other metal surface. This does happen. So far as it goes, bullets will sometimes deflect off of bone or shatter on impact. So, that’s another possible outcome, turning the bullet into a shower of shrapnel still pointed in the general vicinity of everywhere the, “lucky” blade wielder was standing.

The other possibility is that the blade itself fails, turning into shrapnel that sprays your blade wielder. Now, figuring out exactly what would happen depends on a lot of factors, including the exact positioning of the blade, it’s condition, design, also of course the bullet and it’s trajectory. So, I can’t just say, “it’d explode into a shower of shattered metal functioning as an impromptu bomb in their face.” Then again, a bullet isn’t likely to hit their blade in the first place.

Finally, even if this does go to plan, the bullet will still deliver a lot of force to the blade, ruining it. There may be some weird edge case with a super-alloy weapon, and of course, characters with superpowers start to break all kinds of rules, but realistically, that blade is going to suffer some damage in the process.

So, no, you can’t parry a gunshot, but you might be able to accidentally deflect the bullet. Which could be far worse depending on how that plays out.

-Starke

This blog is supported through Patreon. If you enjoy our content, please consider becoming a Patron. Every contribution helps keep us online, and writing. If you already are a Patron, thank you.

Q&A: Dual Pistols

Hello, I don’t know if you’ve ever answered this question before but what is your opinion on dual wielding hand guns? Do you think its practical and if someone was to do it, what would be the best technique?

wolf73000

We have, it’s not.

The general problem with dual wielding firearms is that you’re trading accuracy and control for an extra weapon. This is not an efficient tradeoff. You don’t even get a higher, sustained, rate of fire, because reloading will be more cumbersome. Unless you’ve got matched weapons, you’ll be running dry at different times, meaning you’ll either only have use of one some of the time, or you’ll have to stop and reload erratically. It’s technically possible to stagger your rate of fire so both would run dry together, but if we’re talking about a firefight, the odds of being able to add this to the list of things you want to manage is pretty slim.

You can’t aim both, so you’re either alternating between them, which doesn’t really help, or spraying and praying. That doesn’t work out well for handguns where the overall capacity is pretty low to begin with.

In modern day, you’re better off carrying a backup, using one, and then switching over when you run out of ammo. And, yes, carrying multiple handguns is absolutely a thing. If one suffers a mechanical failure, or, again, you run out of ammo for it, you still have a functional weapon to use. Pulling your backup and trying to use both at the same time is not a good idea.

Historically, this made a little more sense. When looking at 19th century revolvers, or single shot muzzle loaders, the idea of dual wielding had more appeal. For one thing, they weren’t especially accurate to begin with, and you were effectively doubling your firepower. Technically, this was more of a variant of the backup routine above. Because you’d use one, and then switch to the other. In the case of flint and matchlocks, it wasn’t unheard of for someone to go into combat with more than two, so that they could get off multiple shots at the beginning of combat. Muzzle loaders were not accurate to begin with, so no worries about stabilizing them.

Generally speaking, dual wielding firearms gets used because it looks cool, not because it’s a good idea. It’s really not. In that sense, the best technique is to put second gun away until you need it.

-Starke

This blog is supported through Patreon. If you enjoy our content, please consider becoming a Patron. Every contribution helps keep us online, and writing. If you already are a Patron, thank you.

Q&A: Pistol Whipping

How effective (or ineffective) is “pistol whipping” or bashing someone with the butt of a rifle or a similar weapon in real life? Is it a load of bullshit (I imagine most guns being hollow) or can it actually work like in the movies?

flowerapplejacks

You imagine incorrectly, except on a technicality. Turns out, “technically correct,” isn’t the best kind of correct after all.

The barrel is hollow. That’s a necessity, otherwise you can’t fire the bullet. The receiver needs to have a void, so that’s another technicality. Beyond that? It varies.

Most handguns store their magazine in the grip. This means that while the grip is technically hollow, under most circumstances it will be filled with bullets. This can significantly increase the weight of the gun, and make being on the receiving end of a pistol whipping unpleasant.

Rifle butts are a similar story, but this gets into more complex engineering considerations. The short answer here is that you are “sometimes correct.” Some rifle stocks are hollow, some are not, depending on the exact weapon, this might be a relevant consideration, or might not.

Some rifles do use full wooden furniture. Getting struck by this will not be fun. Again, there’s some variation here depending on the wood. Doesn’t matter if it’s pine or walnut, getting tagged will suck. Probably less than if they connect with a polymer stock, but still, would not recommend being on the receiving end of that hit.

Any rifle patterned off the AR15 has a recoil spring in the stock. This is, mostly non-negotiable, and the only exceptions I’m aware of moved the recoil system above the barrel, like an AK. This means any AR pattern rifle will technically have a hollow stock, which is pretty cold comfort, because it’s still the stock, and as a result, still a stable, heavy, chunk of polymer you don’t want to see used as a blunt weapon on your face.

I mentioned AK rifles a moment ago. In this case it really depends. The stock could be wood. It could be polymer. It could be a simple collapsible wire construct, in which case, probably not the best thing to use as an improvised melee weapon. Or it could be absent entirely, in which case, you’re not going to get hit with a stock that doesn’t exist.

I’m bringing up those two examples because the vast majority of assault rifles are based on one, or the other. (Technically, the AK was based on the StG44, but the AK is the one we all know.)

When it comes to other rifles, it will depend on the specific weapon. So, it’s kind of hard to generalize. If the gun has a stock that can clock you in the face, it can clock you in the face.

The thing that is “bullshit,” is getting knocked out. Taking loaded handgun to the back of the head will suck. It might even put you on the ground. But, it’s not going to magically knock you unconscious. Striking someone with the butt of your gun can create distance to allow you to open fire on them. It will not knock them out safely. That is a myth.

So, if that was your question, “can my character clock someone across the back of the head with their handgun to knock them out?” then, “no.” They can do that, but it’s just going piss off and knock down their opponent.

Generally, I would not recommend this. You never want to take a handgun into melee if you have the option. So, if you have functional handgun, shoot them, don’t walk over and slap them with it. Similar situation with a rifle. This is large, easy to grab, object. It’s far more effective when your foe is not close enough to wrestle with you for control.

-Starke

In a strange moment, while writing up the tags, I’ve discovered that we answered a similar question two years ago. The auto-import from Tumblr messed things up a little, but you can find the post here.

This blog is supported through Patreon. If you enjoy our content, please consider becoming a Patron. Every contribution helps keep us online, and writing. If you already are a Patron, thank you.

Q&A: Handgun Accomidations

How can my character who is missing a thumb use a handgun? Can some kind of handicap device to built? Or would you recommend using their non dominant hand that does have a thumb?

So, this kinda depends on a couple things. In general, the first suggestion would be to learn to shoot off hand. It’s easier, and you don’t lose much accuracy with practice.

Normally, first metacarpis creates a natural resting point for a handgun grip (and most firearms), allowing the weapon to transfer recoil into the user. If your character is completely missing their thumb (as in all three bones are missing), this resting point will be absent, and without some kind of careful accommodation (such as a completely custom grip, or surgery), it would probably be impossible to control recoil.

If the thumb had been lost as the result of trauma, it’s likely that the first metacarpal would still be intact, meaning their grip would be less secure, but recoil would be manageable. Again, using the off hand would probably be preferable, but it would be possible for them to use a firearm with the thumbless hand.

There’s an additional consideration here. Some firearms are not designed to be used in the left hand. This isn’t a unique issue for your character. How ambidextrous friendly a handgun is varies by the individual models, sometimes even within different generations of the same gun.

Generally speaking, there’s three tiers of ambidexterity in handguns. Firearms that cannot be reversed at all, ones that are normally ambidextrous, or mostly ambidextrous, and ones that can be easily converted depending on the hand.

What this means for you is, you may need to check the specific firearm you’re thinking of.

The issues to look at on a handgun are the grip, magazine release, slide release, and safety.

Asymmetric grips are a little unusual in handguns. They’re more common with sporting rifles. In cases like this, you’d need an entirely separate replacement grip to fit the off hand. In a few rare cases, it may not be possible to replace the grip at all.

Asymmetric magazine releases are more common. This includes things like the 1911, Glocks, Beretta 92, and some SIGs. These use a simple push button magazine release, which is mounted at the bottom of the trigger guard. It’s easily accessible with your thumb, while holding the firearm with your right hand. However, depending on your grip in your off hand, you may need to adjust the pistol significantly to kick the magazine out when holding the gun left handed.

Additionally, because these magazine releases rest under the middle finger while holding the gun with the left hand, it’s possible to accidentally drop the magazine when firing, due to recoil on some models, for some shooters.

There are several, semi-common, magazine release methods that are ambidextrous. A pair of levers located in line with the trigger guard, which can be pressed down to release the mag. Sometimes, instead of a single push button, there will be one on either side of the frame. These usually will work if either button is pressed. Finally, an older style is a simple mechanical catch at the base of the grip which holds the magazine in place. Pressing this back will allow the user to reload. This last variation poses a unique challenge to your character, because, you press the catch back with your thumb, then pull down on the magazine with one of your other fingers, without a thumb, it would be significantly harder to reload a firearm that uses this style of magazine release.

To be fair, reloading may pose a unique challenge to your character, as you use your thumb to manipulate the magazine. This might be less significant if they’re simply discarding partial and spent magazines, but that’s expensive.

The slide release is a lever or button which will allow the slide to close after it’s been locked open. Usually, it will lock open after cycling with an empty magazine. This significantly speeds up reloading on an empty firearm, and provides useful information to the user that the gun is dry. In many cases, this is mounted along the slide, and can be accessed by depressing it with your thumb. However, if you’re holding the firearm in your left hand, you may need to reach over the slide to close it and cycle the first round into battery.

Swapping the slide release over to the opposite side is sometimes possible, but requires the user to replace the slide, and release lever in most cases. Now, some manufacturers do release entire kits, or mirrored versions of their pistols for left handed shooters. Though, fully mirrored weapons are something of an oddity.

It’s also worth noting that, replacing the slide will sometimes also reverse the ejection port. This isn’t a huge thing most of the time, but can make the gun more comfortable for a left-handed shooter, as the brass will be ejected away from their face rather than towards it.

Also, as a bit of random trivia: Many first person shooters feature reversed ejection ports on their firearms, so that the gun ejects brass in front of the user. There’s no technical reason for this, it’s done to make the gun more mechanically interesting when fired.

Ambidextrous safeties are more common, but it’s entirely possible a left-handed shooter will have to reach over the weapon to adjust these controls.

Now, I’ve been saying left-handed, on the assumption that your character is right handed. If your character is left handed, it will probably be easier for them to operate a firearm with their right hand, and stabilize with their left. Reloading would still be a challenge, however, simply because of the size, and weight of the magazines.

So, it depends on the exact condition of your character’s hand. If they’re right handed, and only missing a digit or two from their thumb, it might still be easier to use it in that hand. If they’re left handed, firing right-handed is probably the way to go. If they’re right handed, and the thumb is completely missing, down to the wrist, then the left hand is probably the way to go. Though, it is possible there might be some kind of custom wrist locking grip, I’m unaware of, that would allow them to operate it in their dominant hand without issue.

-Starke

This blog is supported through Patreon. If you enjoy our content, please consider becoming a Patron. Every contribution helps keep us online, and writing. If you already are a Patron, thank you.

Q&A: Firearms and Advertising

A woman asks her lover to show ask her how to shoot because „good w a gun can stop bad guy w a gun“. He is a soldier & will say no, he thinks someone unexperienced with a gun is someone potentially dangerous. Iho it‘s much more likely she will hurt someone unintentionally than anything else, because she can never get enough training to become comfortable a& accustomed to a gun. Is that a realistic opinion for someone with an army background, or should I think of something else to deny her?

Yeah, that, “good guy with a gun,” statement is bullshit. It’s an advertising slogan masquerading as policy.

So, let’s talk about the most basic element of advertising for a second. When you’re selling someone to someone, your first goal is to create a need, then you provide a product to fill that need. Most people aren’t going to spend 20 bucks on something they don’t have a use for. Some products generate their own need, food for instance, while others, not so much.

Selling someone a gun requires you create a need first. Most people don’t work in occupations where a firearm is useful, to say nothing of necessary. If you’re working middle management, or as a retail cashier, you’re never going to be in a situation where your job will be improved by going strapped.

If you’re in law enforcement, a soldier, a handful of other occupations, then yes. Having a firearm is an important tool for being able to do your job. It’s necessary, and your job will either provide one, or point you in the direction of where to obtain a weapon.

Unless you need a gun for your job, you don’t need a gun. Full stop. So, for someone in marketing, their job is to create that need.

Then, in an era of mass shootings, we get this, “good guy with a gun,” line. It’s creating a need. It’s telling you, “hey, you see all those bad things happening out there? You could be a hero and stop them, if you were there, and armed.” It’s a lie. Like a lot of good marketing, it plays off of desires to present an illusion. It’s saying, “you need this if you want to be able to play the hero when the time comes.”

This need is there to get you to spend $400 you don’t have, on a product you’ll never use, because of a hypothetical situation, where you could live out your fantasy… and then shot by SWAT.

So two things: mass shootings in the United States are frighteningly frequent, and you’re more likely to win the lottery. Last year there were 345 mass shootings (which was a record), in a nation with a population of 325 million people. Now, that’s not quite a one in a million chance, because mass shootings do involve multiple people, but at the same time, your odds of ever actually being in an active shooter situation are vanishingly rare.

So, you’re being sold a fairly expensive piece of hardware, and spending more to train on, and become proficient with, that piece of hardware. Ammo and maintenance is not cheap. A responsible shooter could easily rack up a $1200 a year bill on ammo, to say nothing of range fees and other expenses.

You’re being sold this on the idea that, “but, what if,” where the odds of it happening are already incredibly low. Even then, if you carry that, “what if,” to it’s natural conclusion, things don’t get better.

Like a lot of power fantasies, the “good guy with a gun” is dependent on things playing out perfectly, and in direct contrast to how things are far more likely to go.

I mentioned your character getting shot by SWAT earlier, but this is a real risk. If you do find yourself in an active shooter situation, the police will come in looking for a civilian, armed with a weapon, firing at people. If you pull a gun and start firing on the shooter, you will be a civilian, armed with a weapon, firing at people. There is no way for police to distinguish “good guys” from “bad guys” when the bullets are flying, just police and suspects. This, ironically, puts you in more danger because you will be targeted by a better armed, more numerous group than you would if you were dealing with a single lone shooter, and you will be dealt with as if you were one of the perpetrators.

The “good guy with a gun,” phrase survives because it’s effective marketing. It creates a need, and then offers a product to fill that need. “Don’t want to die? Buy this thing.”

The idea that she can never become proficient enough to use it in an emergency isn’t true. It is something that depends on spending a lot of time with the weapon, practicing. So, it’s possible she could learn how to handle it, to the point that she’s able to operate it during an adrenaline rush. Not likely, but it is possible, it just takes a lot of work.

However, the simplistic, “good guy with a gun,” sort of skirts around training and practicing to become proficient. It’s just, “here, if you have this thing,” which would be forgivable if we were talking about selling microwaves or vacuum cleaners, but instead we’re talking about selling firearms to untrained civilians, then actively encouraging them to use said firearms in crisis situations.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with recreational shooting. Something that may get missed is guns are fun to shoot, they’re mechanically fascinating, and there’s a ton of history there. There’s a lot of benign reasons for someone to collect, or even use them. However, when someone takes that recreational or utility element, and says, “okay, but you use those to be ‘a hero,'” everything goes off the rails.

If you’re in an active shooter situation, you can do far more good by keeping your head, finding ways to secure yourself and other survivors away from the shooter, and finding ways to contact the police. Going in playing cowboy is a recipe for tragedy.

-Starke

This blog is supported through Patreon. If you enjoy our content, please consider becoming a Patron. Every contribution helps keep us online, and writing. If you already are a Patron, thank you.

Q&A: Sword & Gun

So my story exists in a modern-day setting where magic and supernatural entities are extremely common and well known. The main character is what is known as a “Bladesman”, a sort of modern-day knight who specializes in magical combat, as well as dual-wilding a sword and a revolver (no semi-automatic weapons- never got that far because magic was cooler). How do you think this fighting style would work out? What’s kind of strategies would be employed?

These actually came as two separate questions, hence the broken format.

So, I know I’ve said this before, but the problem with swords in a modern combat environment is range. If you have any kind of repeating firearm, the chances of getting into range where you can use a melee weapon drops dramatically. Even if your setting is only using revolvers, the chances of your character actually using their sword is fairly slim.

Gun and sword combinations are most prevalent when the firearm will not adequately dispatch your foes, but can function as way to open combat. If your setting is age of sail, with single shot, inaccurate smooth bore pistols which need to be reloaded after each shot, then carrying a saber for melee makes a lot of sense. Especially if you’re going to be fighting in close quarters.

Revolvers start to skew these situations against the gun and sword combo. It doesn’t mean you can’t use them. Just that your character is far more likely to carry a sword, and switch to that when their revolver isn’t working.

This is especially plausible when you’re dealing with creatures that are impervious to bullets, or require some kind of specialized equipment to dispatch.

I’d also caution against the, “magic was cooler,” bit. When it comes to weapons technology, people tend to look for what’s more efficient, or effective, before they worry about how cool something is. When it comes to aesthetics, sure, but that no one developed an autoloader because it wasn’t cool enough isn’t consistent with how people actually behave.

You don’t use a gun that can fire eight times, which is also easier and faster to reload over a six-shot revolver because it looks cool. You use it because you’re getting two extra shots, and a faster reload, because that’s a decisive advantage over someone who’s fumbling with their wheel gun.

There are legitimate reasons why your character might use a revolver, there are even legitimate reasons why semi-automatic firearms may not exist in your setting, but coolness shouldn’t be a consideration.

Some possibilities include the idea that the revolver itself is enchanted in some way. Your character may be loading unconventional rounds into it that wouldn’t function in an automatic. Your character may prefer the accuracy or even the feel of the revolver. If your character spends a lot of time unable to care for their weapon, a revolver might be a better option simply for the ease of maintenance, and overall durability.

You might also have a setting where advanced machinery malfunctions in the face of magic. This could render firearms more advanced than a revolver non-functional when dealing with magic users. Of course, this would also cause serious issues for other mechanical systems, like almost all modern vehicles. So, that’s a major world-building issue you may want to think through.

It’s possible the overall mechanical simplicity of a revolver makes it easier to enchant in your setting.

There’s also a legitimate argument for sufficiently advanced magic impairing the development of technology in a setting. After all, why would you need phones if you could communicate with someone else using enchanted objects. This can lead to a complex web of anachrotech as things like cellphones or even computers don’t exist in favor of magical alternatives. This may result in a situation where characters are using some kind of multi-shot cartridges for their firearms. As in you load a single shell, but can fire ten or more magical blasts from it. At that point, the idea of a conventional semi-automatic firearm wouldn’t have much of a place. Though, I suspect you’d see something more like a bolt action pistol, designed to be fired multiple times on the same chamber before cycling (which doesn’t exist in the real world, for obvious reasons.)

It’s also distinctly possible your character (or other characters) may carry talismans designed to ward off bullets. This would cause the swords to make somewhat more sense. Though, again, we’re back to the situation where your character would be using one weapon or the other, though probably not both at the same time. Though, they may draw both together, and begin by firing before switching to their sword.

Also, before I forget, what are some swords that you can wield effectively with one hand? Thanks!

Nearly any sword can be used effectively with one hand, even greatswords like the claymore or zweihander. It’s worth remembering, even the largest didn’t exceed 8lbs, (most greatswords were 5-6lbs.) Most European swords were designed for use in one hand, so, while they benefit from an off hand, they don’t need it. To be fair, wielding a great sword with one hand is not ideal.

There’s also a number of swords, mostly early modern ones, such as the saber and rapier, which were designed to be used in one hand exclusively.

So, nearly any sword. I suppose when you start mixing in magical enchantments, even those limitations start to become a bit more flexible.

-Starke

This blog is supported through Patreon. If you enjoy our content, please consider becoming a Patron. Every contribution helps keep us online, and writing. If you already are a Patron, thank you.

Q&A: Side Shooting

Is there actually any merit to pointing a gun sideways to shoot, or is that just more nonsense put in the “hood” movies just to look cool?

The short version would be to say, “mostly,” and leave it at that, though there’s a lot more information here that can be addressed if you want to dig in. There are a few rare circumstances where it is a valid grip for use in combat.

This is basically trivia, but the grip has been documented in fiction going back over a century, so it’s certainly not just a product of 90s films. That said, the modern use, and it’s place in modern American gang iconography can be traced back to films like Menace II Society.

Due to it’s use in films, and associated with American gang culture, it’s sometimes called, “gangsta style.” At this point the grip is almost exclusively associated with criminal elements, and is a pretty easy way to identify a shooter who doesn’t know what they’re doing.

There’s one big problem, and one myth, associated with it, so let’s take those in reverse order.

The myth is that firing sideways increases the chance of a jam. This doesn’t really make a lot of sense if you know anything about how firearms function. The theory is, that by holding the firearm horizontally, the shell will fail to eject properly, obstructing the ejection port, and causing a failure to feed. The idea behind this is that, somehow, gravity works differently if the gun is held at a 90 degree angle, instead of vertically. The problem with this is, shell casings go pretty much wherever they want. I’ve had off-brand M9 pattern pistols throw shell casings into my face. (I also, hate M9s as a result.) Because of how the case ejection system works in most handguns, you can fire them from pretty much any position without issues.

The problem is, most people side shooting will sight across the side of the slide. This, doesn’t work. Unless you’re standing next to the target, you need to use the sights to put a round where you want it.

There’s another accuracy factor, most competent shooters will brace their handgun with both hands. This stabilizes the pistol, and allows for far more accurate shooting. Side shooting will almost always result in the weapon, unsupported, at arm’s length. This results in greater barrel shake, and less recoil control. Even if you’re using the sights, it will be less accurate on the first shot, and recoil will be more severe.

So, I said there were some uses for this shooting position. I have a few specific examples, though there may be others.

Center Axis Relock is a modern Close Quarters Combat shooting stance popularized in films like John Wick, and video games like the Splinter Cell series.

CAR pulls the firearm closer to the body in comparison to a normal Weaver stance. This causes the user to raise their shooting arm’s elbow to partially protect their face, and rotates the firearm to a 45 degree angle. In some circumstances the user may raise their arm further, fully shielding their face on that side and rotating the firearm horizontal. Throughout all of this they will still be sighting using the handgun’s iron sights, additionally, they will keep their off hand on the firearm stabilizing it.

Worth noting, from a 45 degree angle, your shooting arm will not obstruct your vision on that side, raising it to horizontal will, making this less appealing unless necessary. For example: if there is a bright light shining in the user’s eyes from that direction, raising the arm will allow them to block that distraction.

The major advantage of CAR is that it’s incredibly difficult to safely disarm the user.

One of the few situations where someone will adopt a side shooting stance, basically without modification, is if they’re firing from behind a riot shield. These fully occupy one of the shooter’s hands, and partially obstruct their other hand. In most cases, the shield will include a transparent section to allow the user to see what’s on the other side without exposing themselves to incoming fire. In situations like this it is possible the operator will simply reach around the shield, line their sidearm up with the window, and fire. To be fair, a competent shooter in this situation will still attempt to use the firearm’s iron sights, however, because of the shield, and having to reach around it, the gun will be at a horizontal, or nearly horizontal, angle.

The third situation is far more contextual. In an emergency, a trained operator may aim and fire without adjusting their stance. Because of how your arm is put together, quickly firing to the left or right (depending on your firing arm) without adjusting your chest’s position, will result in the gun being at near horizontal. Also worth noting in situations like this, firing behind you will often result in the handgun being held upside down. This is less, precision shooting, and more, desperate reflexes, though. SWAT and similar groups will practice firing from these positions, however.

Note: You can correct the angle of your arm to keep the pistol vertical while adjusting, it is simply faster to pivot the entire arm, rotating the pistol.

There is a fourth situation which is particular to rifles. While firing from a prone position with a protruding box magazine (so, most assault rifles), some shooters will opt to rotate the firearm, rather than lift themselves up, exposing themselves to enemy fire. Depending on range there are a lot of factors to consider here, but in some situations, this is the best option available.

Another possible variant is operating a firearm in very tight spaces, such as cramped service passages, or those mythical air ducts that are large enough to allow a grown human to crawl around.

Usually, it’s either to look cool, and anyone who habitually draws their handgun in a side shooting stance is a pretty good indicator that they don’t know what they’re doing. For some writers, this stance is synonymous with criminals. An undercover cop may use a stance like this while protecting their cover, even though it runs contrary to their training.

Also, worth noting that it’s entirely possible to meet gang members who’ve had military firearms training, and as a result know exactly how to handle their firearms. At which point you wouldn’t see something like this.

Some writers may not realize that this stance doesn’t work, or is sub-optimal, and may imbue it with special characteristics. That’s, simply, not the case. There are good reasons that almost no one who knows what they’re doing would ever use this stance.

-Starke

This blog is supported through Patreon. If you enjoy our content, please consider becoming a Patron. Every contribution helps keep us online, and writing. If you already are a Patron, thank you.