User blog comment:MilitaryBrat/Hans Landa vs Dr. King Schultz/@comment-11048590-20130312231154/@comment-4552610-20130313030712

I say unfair. The difference in technology is too great. Schultz is backing plain black-powder powered weapons, known for their lack of power (Death usually came from infections, not the bullets) and not being that reliable, while Lana is using more advanced and far more reliable as their rounds used a superior energy source. It's not the guns themselves (Though THAT is a big reason why this is not fair) but the rounds it provides. Why wasn't the 1860 Henry Rifle used in WW2? They didn't have the power to kill. It was weak and leaver action rifles have a weaker build over the bolt action kind. The 1858 Colt New Army had a terrible reload system and rounds that held little power. If you are going to get shot by a Civil War gun vs a WW2 gun, chances are, the WW2 gun will kill you first.