@slimj87d: Good thread. I've actually brought this up in threads before. Being a military man I can tell based on the drawn design of a weapon what the make is, what rounds that weapon chambers, the most common grains, and the respective velocities of those particular rounds. It's useful when you're debating and someone argues that two classes of characters are near in speed (for example if someone argues Batman = Spider-Man due to bullet timing, etc) by blasting someone with knowledge that they might not know/consider.
However writers probably (I'd dare say definitely) don't know that much about firearms and their ballistics, so those are things they never factor in. Which brings me to a point I consistently have brought up in my debates which i think is often overlooked: writer's intent. Writers probably don't know an M16 from an M4, and likely don't know an M4 from an HK416 or SCAR. All look similar in design, but the weapons function differently. So if the writer says a group of men are say, Navy SEALs and are using a particular rifle that is drawn in appearance to an M4, am I correct in coming in and saying "no, modern SEALs currently kit out using an HK416"? The writer and artist probably wouldn't know the difference from a hole in the wall.
I know I'm probably really in the weeds with this, and while I'm in agreement that not all bullets and bullet timing feats are created equal, where would you draw the line when you consider that writers really don't put that much thought into it?
Log in to comment