SpikeTV's The Deadliest Warrior
 

Not sure how many people have seen this show, but essentially they pit warriors throughout time against each other and try to guess the outcome by analyzing their weapons. Obviously their methods are not entirely scientific but the show is very entertaining.

A few of my favorite moments are:
- In IRA vs Taliban, they threw some mud on both the AR-15 and AK-47 to test reliability.

-In Green Beret vs Spetsnaz they featured both the saiga and a mossberg pump shotgun to show how much damage each could do.

-In Maori Warrior vs Shaolin Monk, the maori's shark tooth club was just a badass weapon!

You can watch full episodes and the after-show commentary on the website:

Deadliest Warrior

That is really all I had to add to this discussion.

spets should win all lol

http://www.terma-nator.com/images/mo...n/Spetsnaz.jpg

I think they should rename the show 1001 Ways To Dismember A Pig's Carcass

I find it has a weird sort of Snuff Film quality to it and don't watch it.

I like the show, but I wish they didn't have the stupid "computer hacker guy with his ultra-advanced analysis program". I'd be fine if they just were a bunch of guys who knew about weapons, testing and comparing performance/damage.


I also really enjoy when they bring in the "doctor" for a "medical analysis":

"This dummy has 2 arrows through both of his eyeballs, his jugular has been severed, and his ribcage is crushed. What do you think, doctor?"
"Yep, it looks like this guy is going to be in a lot of pain."

Thanks, doc! Glad to have your many years of medical experience on the team.

I really like the show, and actually sat through a marathon of the series over the weekend. I just don't rely on their "supposed" scientific method to determining who bests who in a death match. I also notice that at least 33% of the show is just smack-talk between the two opposing combatants' experts every single episode. I think the most memorable scene I recall is when the pirate defeated the knight by stabbing him in the face. That's reason enough to have me tuning in every week.

I can't stand the show. It is too over the top and they often don't show the most characteristic weapons/techniques of the groups they are highlighting.

They also rig the tests.

For example:
In the AR-15 Vs. AK-47 test they had the dust cover open on the AR-15 when they slathered it with mud. The AK also has a dust cover, which covers the entire receiver...it was on.

The Green Beret Vs. Spetsnaz episode was just stupid. SF guys only use mossbergs as breaching shotguns. They are cut down and carried as a third weapon to blast locks. Teams are issued semiautomatic Bennelli's for combat use which are FAR superior to the Saiga.

As shitty as the Beretta is, it isn't even in the same ballpark of shittiness as the Makarov, which is really only useful for executing prisoners.

The Taliban episode...I have read a lot of reports regarding IED's, and I have never heard of one that was 'only' 10 pounds. They are typically 1: Several HUNDRED pounds of bulk explosive, 2: Several TC-6 mines (with 26 pounds high explosives each) stacked on top of each other, or 3: a combination of the two with/without anything else they can get their hands on. Go big or go home applies...they are blowing up heavily armored vehicles. There was a 10,000 pound VBIED in Peshawar the other day.....TEN THOUSAND POUNDS. The IRA made a black powder pipe bomb and used a slingshot.

Show is garbage that has neither technical nor tactical expertise incorporated into any part of it.

It's a passive video game demo at best where the rules and stats are twisted for entertainment.

I would agree with this. However I still enjoy watching grenades being detonated in slow motion and seeing how much damage blades do to raw meat. :thumbsup:

Saw it, hated it, for all the reasons already stated. Total dreck.

I normally defer to your in-country expertise in such matters, but I must ask; how? THe Benelli has a smaller magazine capacity than the Saiga, is fed by a tube magazine (which is slow to reload and limits the degree to which the weapon can be shortened while still maintaining a useful capacity), in my observation cannot be fired as quickly, and I've yet to see a Saiga malfunction for weapon-related reasons (cheap Wally World ammo sometimes deforms if left in the mag too long, but that's the only malf I've seen with the Saiga), whereas I've heard repeated complaints by several customers who've served in Iraq and Afghanistan in regards to the Benelli's reliability. Most stated (quite emphatically in most cases) that they'd rather have the Mossberg 590A1's back, and all of them fell utterly in love with the Saiga.

I agree that the "Deadliest Warrior" portrayal of the Saiga sucked balls, but that was because they were showcasing the baseline "sporter" model with the straight stock, long barrel and 5rd magazine. A "Combat" Saiga with a folding or adjustable stock, short barrel, and 8-10rd magazine is a -much- different animal. I've watched my Boss dump 10rds of 3" 000 Buck from his Saiga 12ga in a little less than 3 seconds, on a stopwatch. That comes to 2400ppm, a projectiles-on-target count exceeded only by rotary cannons.

I only saw the IRA vs Taliban, and it was awesome to watch drunk and hilariously racist.
[citation needed]

I don't think a generalization based on his life experience requires a citation, chief. Yeah, I like the Makarov, too... but it isn't a H&K .45 and I wouldn't use it in a bang-bang situation unless my other choice was a Hi-Point. The limitations of the 9x18mm, the tiny sights, and the single stack mag with bottom release make it better for foreign cops than GI Joes. Just based on stats alone, a Glock 19 is vastly superior in every category / situation you can think up.

It's a good concealed carry piece assuming you consider 9x18mm a viable manstopper.

Ok,

Well, obviously any firearm can get the job done with proper shot placement from close range, but the person you are trying to shoot likely isn't cooperating. My point is that the Makarov is not particularly well suited to an environment where the person you are trying to shoot will be shooting back at you.

There are several good reasons why:

It holds 8 rounds of an underpowered cartridge. In order to change magazines you have to fiddle with the bottom of the weapon. The safety/decocker is very difficult to use and it is not recommended the weapon be carried with the safety off. The sights are small. The open sides of the magazine allow twigs/dirt and other debris to interfere with the proper operation of the weapon. It is a simple blow-back action which is not particularly reliable. The trigger pull is horrible. Etc.

Edit: BTW, I own one and it is a fun gun to plink with/trunk gun for dispatching wounded deer. I would not want to walk into a fight knowing I had to rely on that weapon. The Beretta has a lot of problems, but at least it works fairly reliably, is easy to shoot, has a slightly less-weak cartridge, holds twice as much ammunition (almost), and can be reloaded very quickly.

Edit again: I'm not trying to be confrontational and after reading my post I felt like it came across that way. My apologies in advance.

Not to offend anybody, I mean if You like it, that's great, but I think it's kind of a silly show. It's technically suspect and the premise is kind of out there. I mean, if time machines were readily available then I could understand where the show was coming from. The slow-motion stuff is mildly entertaining, but all-in-all I think the show is meant to appeal to the Pro Wrastlin' crowd. But, again, whatever floats your boat.

Um, we're talking about a show broadcast on the same network as ultimate fighting, cars & trucks, video games, and reruns of CSI, Married...with Children, and When Animals Attack! It'd be different if it were on the History channel or something.

I agree with nearly everyone saying the show has no merits and doesn't live up to its billings as a true marker of testing the superiority of one warrior compared to the next, but it's still a damn entertaining show from time to time. All they test in the series are the attributed weapons to whatever "warrior" they decide to base that particular episode upon; it's much harder if not impossible to correctly assume the specific technique and skill of a given warrior because they are playing on genres. Best they can do is suppose what they did with the weapon, and only test the "lethality" of it because that's about the singular experiment that might yield a historically-accurate result.

Silly show or not, which I myself lean to the former, I tuned in for the smack talk that would inevitably ensue in all episodes ("good luck hitting me as I drive an arrow through your heart"), actually familiarizing myself with weapons of the past and what purpose they best served, and understanding why each particular "warrior" class existed within their respective eras. I can do without the simulated death match at the end, though at times, that might be the only interesting thing about the episode entirely.

I just watched a couple of episodes online after reading all the comments here. Wow, this show is a lot of bullshit. Very few tests are about the capabilities and features of the weapons itself. They edited out the cycling of the bolt action sniper rifle when comparing it to the SVD so they appeared to have the same rate of fire. When the guy was running the course with the Makarov they edited out his obvious need to reload so you couldn't show how quickly it ran out compared to the Beretta.

So because the guy with the Beretta wasn't a good shot with his weapon, the Makarov is a better gun? What the hell?

Yes, they are far too subjective and unscientific in what they show. However, I wouldn't be surprised if the actual data they entered into their stats program was more fair than what they are saying in front of the camera.

Apart from the tests being very different and unfair for each side, what really gets to me is the blatant plain BS they sometimes show. In the Taliban vs. IRA episode, they had (contrary to what someone said above) the dust cover on the M16 closed when smudging mud on the receiver. Then when he walked off to do the testing, they show the man very vaguely from behind and there's a couple of sound effects of shots being fired, with no reaction from the man. Then he pronounces that it's jammed. As he turns around, we see the M16 receiver exactly the way it was before, with the dust cover port STILL CLOSED. That means that it is extremely highly probable that he did not shoot a single shot, nor even cocked the gun (if you shoot or pull the charging handle, the dust cover port will automatically flip open), and that it was all an attempt at misleading us. What rubbish. The M16 probably would be much faster to Jam than the AK series, but never the less, that was very dishonest.

Regarding the Makarov vs Beretta, clearly the Beretta is better as a sidearm, and the test was based purely on operator skill.

The fun stuff of the show is seeing the damage the weapons do in slow motion and learning how they were used. The smack talk is dreadfully fake looking - are they all really THAT biased and narrow minded? Doubtful. I can't believe anyone wants to see that.

One thing that pisses me off about the M16 vs. AK47 thing is that I took my AK (hooray cheap Romanian crap!) to the range once, and I think my number of jams in 200 rounds was higher than the number of times I've heard people complain about the M16 jamming. Where's the stereotype when it's in my favor? :grumpy:
You have to try a lot harder than that to offend me, and in the end what matters is that it was a good, informative post.

Bleh. All the critiques here + their "experts" are highly suspect and I strongly think most of them are actors. I don't know as much about firearms but a ton of the so called martial arts stuff was completely retarded. This show reminds me a lot of that (I think it was on animal planet) one that did "animal duels" like facing a tiger off vs a lion...except it was computer generated and they made up half the stats. I hate to see these shows because it worries me what the general public is "learning" from them.

They are not actors, just genuine retards.

I have met one of the guys who was on that show, and he really is/was what they claimed.