Gun grips.

[otherunicorn]

Close range implies anywhere from 10-100m.

Okay, you are getting dictionary on me. I was referring to humans standing near each other - 10 to 20 feet. Classic 50's movie shit.

...and if you are facing them head on?

You refuse to lose any argument, no bloody matter what, don't you? I was talking about the side on situation, wasn't I? Did I make any attempt to contradict the head on situation? No, I didn't. So why bring it up again?

Okay, electricity isn't, motors though. A small motor, no matter what is powering it or what it is made of, still does not put out much torque.

Explain that to Rainbow Dash's flying turtle... er ... tortoise.

[Sgt Muffin]

You refuse to lose any argument, no bloody matter what, don't you? I was talking about the side on situation, wasn't I? Did I make any attempt to contradict the head on situation? No, I didn't. So why bring it up again?

I am listing all the possibilities because that's what you do when you are trying to establish a point. Yes, I if you were attack the pony from the side then okay, one round and your still kinda on target.

Explain that to Rainbow Dash's flying turtle... er ... tortoise.

I think we are trying to bring a little more realism to it then that. Using your logic, how does the tortoise control that mechanism on top? How does he not spin-out, I see no stabilising fin/propeller on the back.

[otherunicorn]

You refuse to lose any argument, no bloody matter what, don't you? I was talking about the side on situation, wasn't I? Did I make any attempt to contradict the head on situation? No, I didn't. So why bring it up again?

I am listing all the possibilities because that's what you do when you are trying to establish a point. Yes, I if you were attack the pony from the side then okay, one round and your still kinda on target.

Explain that to Rainbow Dash's flying turtle... er ... tortoise.

I think we are trying to bring a little more realism to it then that. Using your logic, how does the tortoise control that mechanism on top? How does he not spin-out, I see no stabilising fin/propeller on the back.

People make such a fuss over things being canon. How does it work? Magic. Clearly there is more magic at work than just the motor. (In reality this sort of magic is called script writers intervention.) As for bringing realism to a story that is a crossover between a child's cartoon and a wasteland fantasy game... why?

It is never stated that EFS was around before the bombs were drop, and it was never stated that it wasn't. Thus you cannot really bring that up in your argument that they were designed that way with EFS in mind.

I did I not say or imply this. I said EFS was developed to overcome the shortcomings of the existing guns!

At least in my fiction, the filly is firing a .22LR pistol with a simple fold up wire sight that had to be specifically adjusted for her use.

[Sgt Muffin]

People make such a fuss over things being canon. How does it work? Magic. Clearly there is more magic at work than just the motor. (In reality this sort of magic is called script writers intervention.) As for bringing realism to a story that is a crossover between a child's cartoon and a wasteland fantasy game... why?

Because all things must have an element of realism. Just like Fallout, it has a base of realism. Taking concept designs that would be outdated by modern tech but not outdated in a world where microchips were never developed. It also hold (for the most part) realistic gun designs and a realistic reloading mechanics. It has real world physics and facts.
MLP on the other hand hold not many realistic things. A pure work of fiction. So think of it as fantasy to your fact.

I did I not say or imply this. I said EFS was developed to overcome the shortcomings of the existing guns!

At least in my fiction, the filly is firing a .22LR pistol with a simple fold up wire sight that had to be specifically adjusted for her use.

Well then, I have no quarrel with that. I just took your post as say. "Ponies designed guns with the thought that they would be aimed with technology we do not posses at this time."
If your pony is firing a .22 calibre pistol, with her mouth, with the help of a sight... what's wrong with that? Although, I would put in the negative aspects such as the fact that a .22 calibre bullet has a hard time piercing a horse skull, trust me, it was not pleasant to the mind or ears to say the least. Euthanasia is not fun.

[icekatze]

hi hi

However, pistols do require a blow back design because if you were to use a gas system the pistol would rip it's self to pieces.

Maybe your pistol requires a blow-back design, but your argument that "Gun mechanics are damaged by taking them away from what they are today." is blatantly false.

Its like saying "Well, we've got jet airplanes today, and a hundred years ago, people were just riding around on horses. Therefore, jet airplanes are the perfect mode of transportation and its impossible to ever improve on them."

Just because you know how your gun works, doesn't mean you know how every possible gun works.

A 1911A1 require a very good grip on the weapon to make it cycle properly.

This is a verifiably false statement. You've provided no source or indication that you have any proof to back up the assertion made by firearms testers. The empirical evidence clearly states that the 1911A1 can be fired in multiple positions without risk of jamming.

Imagine getting slapped in the face, can you keep your eyes on a fixed point? No, you can't.

The human eye can focus on a target in less than 250 milliseconds. Not a problem, especially if you train for it.

Bringing up statistics on US police was a bad idea. US police are considered some on the least trained and skilled police in the world.

If you'd bothered to read my quotes, you'd see that the US military, which is highly regarded as being well trained, also experiences the same results. The marksmanship of the shooter does not correlate to accuracy in normal combat conditions. When a target is within 15 feet of the shooter, there is an increasing probability that they can reach melee range and attempt to disarm the shooter before they are able to properly draw, aim, establish proper breathing and trigger control, and fire their weapon. Target shooting, it turns out, is very far removed from actual combat conditions and doesn't provide a good analogy. Trying to sight your weapon in a typical encounter is a good way to end up being shot or disarmed before you have time to fire.

Even with only a 34% chance of hitting with a single shot, after emptying a 12 round magazine, you are statistically likely to get around 4 hits.

Meanwhile, in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US army is using over 1.8 billion rounds of small-arms ammunition a year, for a ratio of about 250,000 bullets fired per insurgent killed. Even if you account for training exercises, the absolute minimum ratio for in combat effectiveness is estimated at no less than 10,000 bullets fired per hit, but is probably much higher. Turns out that when someone is shooting back at you, everything becomes a lot more difficult.

Side arms are not intended to be used as replacement weapons for long arms. If you are doing so in a combat situation, then you are already in trouble. If running out of ammunition for your long arm is a concern, a spare magazine is easier to bring along than a second weapon. And if you're going up against someone with an assault rifle at long range, your chances of success are slim, no matter what your technique is.

Police are given a pistol as a deterrent, as in, "He has a gun, I don't want to fuck with him!"

This is totally false. First of all, displaying a hand gun increases the risk of a confrontation. Studies have shown time and time again that when people see a weapon displayed, or even mentioned in conversation, it increases the likelihood of escalation to violence. When pushed, people have a tendency to push back instinctively. Police are given handguns for self defense. (Weapons as Aggression-Eliciting Stimuli, Berkowitz, Leonard; LePage, Anthony, 1967.)

So, in summary:
• You may not be able to use a firearm accurately without aiming, but given the number of shots fired with semi-automatic weapons, this is not a problem at short ranges, and aiming a firearm in combat situations leaves you very vulnerable to counter-attack.
• You're trying to compare apples to oranges with human firearms and pony firearms.
• Your assertion that fire arms today are the best possible design is like saying that todays computers are the best possible design, and they'll never be replaced by anything better.

[otherunicorn]

If your pony is firing a .22 calibre pistol, with her mouth, with the help of a sight... what's wrong with that? Although, I would put in the negative aspects such as the fact that a .22 calibre bullet has a hard time piercing a horse skull, trust me, it was not pleasant to the mind or ears to say the least. Euthanasia is not fun.

Yes, it's an underpowered gun for an underpowered pony to use as a last resort.

Nasty fact. In the last year, I had 5 of my ponies put down by a .22 hollow point to the head.

[Sgt Muffin]

Yes, it's an underpowered gun for an underpowered pony to use as a last resort.

Nasty fact. In the last year, I had 5 of my ponies put down by a .22 hollow point to the head.

Really? I must had had a really bad shot then. The guy told me where to shoot and that is where I put the round, but the poor thing didn't die.
I'm no expert in Euthanasia, we just stumbled across an overturned horse cart on the side of the road, the owner asked the people who stopped to look if they had any guns and me and my brother did. I thought it would be a good life lesson and the owner didn't want to do it. He told me where to shoot and it didn't kill it, he then told me another spot and that did kill it. That was a .22LR lapua round nose soft lead.

hi hi

Maybe your pistol requires a blow-back design, but your argument that "Gun mechanics are damaged by taking them away from what they are today." is blatantly false.

Its like saying "Well, we've got jet airplanes today, and a hundred years ago, people were just riding around on horses. Therefore, jet airplanes are the perfect mode of transportation and its impossible to ever improve on them."

Just because you know how your gun works, doesn't mean you know how every possible gun works.

The 1911A1 has been in service with some military and police departments for over 100 years now. Ever major military in the world uses an assault rife that is 20 years or older. F88 Steyr used by the Australian Army was designed and manufactured in 1977. The M16A2-4 was designed in 1957 with a redesign in 1978, after that all the changes have been non essential (front sight, rails). The AK-74 was deisgned in 1974 and is still used today by most ex-Soviet block countries. The newest assault rifle in use would be the G36, but that was just a rebuild of the HK33.
Every new design on those rifles has not gone through. Look at the XM8, that was a redesign of the G36, it failed. Look at the OWIC, another redesign of the G36, failed. The ACIW, redesign of the F88, failed. Assault rifles have reached the highest point in development. You can't improve on them.

This is a verifiably false statement. You've provided no source or indication that you have any proof to back up the assertion made by firearms testers. The empirical evidence clearly states that the 1911A1 can be fired in multiple positions without risk of jamming.

Other than owning and firing a 9mm 1911A1. There is this: http://youtu.be/c2zgy9xTZ0Y at the time of 1:02 he changes to his weak hand and fires, you can see that his arm is not tense and the gun malfunctions. A stove pipe malfunction.
You read up why this would happen on wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limp_wristing

The human eye can focus on a target in less than 250 milliseconds. Not a problem, especially if you train for it.

That is irrelevant. Your whole head is being jerked to one side rapidly. Your eye focus time has to be put in with shock reaction time, head movement time, brain calculation time and a variety of other times that you have not mentioned. Get a friend to slap you while looking at an object in front of you then come back and try and argue that.

If you'd bothered to read my quotes, you'd see that the US military, which is highly regarded as being well trained, also experiences the same results.

Nope.

In 1969, the Firearms and Tactics Section of the New York City Police Department instituted a procedure for the in-depth documentation and study of Police combat situations. It was designated Department Order SOP 9 (s. 69).

Data gathering began in January 1970, and over 6000 cases were studied during the 1970s. The study results and findings were released in 1981. The following sets out many of those that focus on shooting situations and shooting techniques.

It was entirely about the NYPD.

The marksmanship of the shooter does not correlate to accuracy in normal combat conditions. When a target is within 15 feet of the shooter, there is an increasing probability that they can reach melee range and attempt to disarm the shooter before they are able to properly draw, aim, establish proper breathing and trigger control, and fire their weapon. Target shooting, it turns out, is very far removed from actual combat conditions and doesn't provide a good analogy. Trying to sight your weapon in a typical encounter is a good way to end up being shot or disarmed before you have time to fire.

Yes, silhouette target shooting is very distant from a combat situation. IPSC on the other hand is not. In IPSC, the shooting that I do, you engage target at a variate of distances including 3-15 feet, with the target moving towards and away from you and in some cases that I have done, if the target touches you you are disqualified. Yet it is still perfectly easy to run around the corner, active the target with pistol holstered, unholster, aim at the target, fire 2-4 rounds into it then move to the next target without that target gaining a meter on you.

Even with only a 34% chance of hitting with a single shot, after emptying a 12 round magazine, you are statistically likely to get around 4 hits.

Yes, because emptying a 12 round magazine and hitting 3-4 times is a great way to reduce collateral damage and unwarranted death. As here HERE and HERE explain how 4 bystanders were shot and the person they were trying to apprehend didn't even get hit.
A .45 calibre round or .40S&W typically used by US police only requires 1 shot to incapacitate a person, maybe 3 if they are drugged up. Now I know that I can place 6 rounds onto a target at 5+ meters in under 4 seconds because I have timed it, and that is without knowing where that target is, what distance it is at, and from the holster mind you.

Meanwhile, in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US army is using over 1.8 billion rounds of small-arms ammunition a year, for a ratio of about 250,000 bullets fired per insurgent killed. Even if you account for training exercises, the absolute minimum ratio for in combat effectiveness is estimated at no less than 10,000 bullets fired per hit, but is probably much higher. Turns out that when someone is shooting back at you, everything becomes a lot more difficult.

In ever single war since WW1 armies have been deploying covary fire because targets do not make themselves visible. Take the Afghan mountains, lot of rocks and boulders to hid behind, at a rage of 500m you can't see the individual wearing a grey cloth over his face pop out and fire an RPG. So if you fire 50,000 rounds of ammunition into the hill next to him he is not going to pop out and say hello.

Side arms are not intended to be used as replacement weapons for long arms. If you are doing so in a combat situation, then you are already in trouble. If running out of ammunition for your long arm is a concern, a spare magazine is easier to bring along than a second weapon. And if you're going up against someone with an assault rifle at long range, your chances of success are slim, no matter what your technique is.

Now I don't disagree with this, but I am guessing that I know a lot more soldiers then you do. I know people that served in Vietnam, Ireland, Afghanistan (Russian and American invasions), Iraq and Somalia... to name a few. They have spoken to me a lot about military tactics and weapons. They described a lot about how easy it is to run out of ammunition during a fire fight, now, you are only supplied with a limited number or rounds, they all told me that during an intense fire fight you will use all of those rounds in no time at all. That is where the pistol would come in and they would use it on open target, a rare opportunity weapon.
Now, to go with that. In Vietnam, this man told me that he would pull out his home bought revolver whenever he entered thick vegetation or urban areas because it was a lot easier to manoeuvre then the L1A1 battle rifle.
In Ireland, the pistol was used when ever they moved into building, alleyways, and his hand was on it whenever he was in the car.
Not to mention pistol being used by tunnel rats in Vietnam and Afghanistan.

This is totally false. First of all, displaying a hand gun increases the risk of a confrontation. Studies have shown time and time again that when people see a weapon displayed, or even mentioned in conversation, it increases the likelihood of escalation to violence. When pushed, people have a tendency to push back instinctively. Police are given handguns for self defense. (Weapons as Aggression-Eliciting Stimuli, Berkowitz, Leonard; LePage, Anthony, 1967.)

You will find that police are assaulted (not killed) in the UK, where police officers do not carry firearms, a lot more then they are in the USA where they do carry firearms. Same with other countries with police carrying weapons.
Here are some numbers, for the year of 1991:

Police in USA - 800000
Number of Assaults in one year - 46,500
Population of USA - 312,889,000

Police in England/Wales - 143,734
Nober of Assaults in one year - 19,000
population of England/Wales - 60,000,000

Now look at how many police there are to assaults. There are more assaults in the UK then in the US once you even off the officer to assaults ratio.

[AMARDA]

Actually Muffin, the XM8 was better than the competitors, just wasn't worth the cost of re-equipping the US armed forces to use it.

[icekatze]

hi hi

Ever major military in the world uses an assault rife that is 20 years or older.

Totally irrelevant. If you'll allow me to continue the jet analogy: the F-16 is 36 years old and it remains the most used fighter jet in the world. Is it the pinnacle of fighter jet technology and could never be improved upon? Hardly. Why did the F-35 or the F-22 fail? Money, followed by necessity.

The firearms people are using today remain in use because they are simply good enough.

Get a friend to slap you while looking at an object in front of you then come back and try and argue that.

I take it you've never been in a fist fight before? I know I sure have. Also: mental reaction time for visual stimuli is between 100 and 200 milliseconds.

It was entirely about the NYPD.

Oh, I guess you missed the part where I mentioned the army training manual.

Yet it is still perfectly easy to run around the corner, active the target with pistol holstered, unholster, aim at the target, fire 2-4 rounds into it then move to the next target without that target gaining a meter on you.

What is the target supposed to simulate? A person who's trying to slog through waist deep mud? From a complete stop, people can regularly traverse 5 meters in about a second, while horses can regularly hit 10 meters in the first second from a complete stop. With draw speeds clocking at about 1.5 seconds if you're good, there's really no question that if your target is in the 5-15 meter range, every second counts. You want to be able to fire at all before your target is taking you down and smashing your face in.

Yes, because emptying a 12 round magazine and hitting 3-4 times is a great way to reduce collateral damage and unwarranted death.

First, this is Fallout Equestria we're talking about. Ponies are shooting to kill. Second, even with proper aiming techniques, shooting a moving target is a recipe for collateral damage. Firing at running targets is far and away the number one cause of hunting accidents, and hunting parties are not anywhere close to densely packed city streets. This is why lethal force is almost always a matter of self defense.

They described a lot about how easy it is to run out of ammunition during a fire fight

I've got army buddies too, still, carrying a pistol vs carrying an extra magazine for your rifle is not really giving you an excess of ammunition. If your boss doesn't allow you to load up on ammo before you go out, thats a social engineering problem.

In Vietnam, this man told me that he would pull out his home bought revolver whenever he entered thick vegetation or urban areas

Short ranges and up close. Sounds about right.

Now look at how many police there are to assaults.

That is a spurious correlation. Also, the methodology used in collecting the data is different in both countries. In the United States, the FBI (who collects the data) does not receive data from all law enforcement agencies. In the 2005 report, they only received data from 10,032 agencies, employing 485,048 officers. (serving 74.6 percent of the nation's population.) and reported 57,546 assaults (~11.8%). While your statistic shows about 13.2% for the UK. However, Northern Ireland, which constitutes 3% of the UK's population, contributed to over 10% of the 2004-5 figure, and comes in at about 30% assault rate per officer. (Besides, a baton or any show of force really will usually trigger that aggression priming response. The point is that making a show of force to intimidate only works on people who are already non-violent. Verified in multiple peer reviewed studies.)

[Sgt Muffin]

Actually Muffin, the XM8 was better than the competitors, just wasn't worth the cost of re-equipping the US armed forces to use it.

No the XM8 failed because the M4, MP5 and M249 did what it could do, and better, without having to refit an entire army. You would also have to retrain ever one is how to use it (striping/repairing/malfunctions) where if you refited them with HK416's you would not because it relies on the same AR platform.

hi hi
The firearms people are using today remain in use because they are simply good enough.

The difference between a jet, containing hundreds of sensors, CPU's, targeting equipment, navigation equipment, ect, and a firearm is not comparable in this argument.

I take it you've never been in a fist fight before? I know I sure have. Also: mental reaction time for visual stimuli is between 100 and 200 milliseconds.

I have been in a fair amount of fist fights, I have also been in a fair amount of armed fight (cricket bats, knives, sticks)

What is the target supposed to simulate? A person who's trying to slog through waist deep mud? From a complete stop, people can regularly traverse 5 meters in about a second, while horses can regularly hit 10 meters in the first second from a complete stop. With draw speeds clocking at about 1.5 seconds if you're good, there's really no question that if your target is in the 5-15 meter range, every second counts. You want to be able to fire at all before your target is taking you down and smashing your face in.

Are you sure your holster hasn't got glue in it?
Just the other week, I watch a man shoot 4 targets, 5 meters away, gun in holster, 2 shots on each target, in 2.97 seconds. You obviously don't shoot otherwise you would be a bit more educated on the subject.

First, this is Fallout Equestria we're talking about. Ponies are shooting to kill. Second, even with proper aiming techniques, shooting a moving target is a recipe for collateral damage. Firing at running targets is far and away the number one cause of hunting accidents, and hunting parties are not anywhere close to densely packed city streets. This is why lethal force is almost always a matter of self defense.

Hang on! We were talking about police officers a second ago, and if we are talking about Fallout, you don't want to go firing 12 rounds at one target because ammunition is quite a rarity in a post apocalyptic wasteland, you would want 2 shots per target at most.
Shooting at a moving target may be a hard task for someone just picking up a firearm, but I can pull off shooting at move rabbit, target, pigs and kangaroos, and most of the kangaroos I shoot are from the back of a ute going 30km's an hour.

I've got army buddies too, still, carrying a pistol vs carrying an extra magazine for your rifle is not really giving you an excess of ammunition. If your boss doesn't allow you to load up on ammo before you go out, thats a social engineering problem.

Soldiers only get issued with a certain amount of ammunition. They don't get to choose how much they carry, and usually run out. It's one of those stupid little flaws in the defense force.

Short ranges and up close. Sounds about right.

I don't know if you have been to Vietnam, but I have and you can see a good 200m down a street, and thick vegetation still gives 50+m to sight.

Besides, a baton or any show of force really will usually trigger that aggression priming response. The point is that making a show of force to intimidate only works on people who are already non-violent. Verified in multiple peer reviewed studies.

So what your saying is, if you were attacking someone, for what ever reason, with a baseball bat, and they pulled a gun on you, your going to keep whacking them? Because if you do, then you must be pretty stubborn.