Supported Weapons

keef_haggerd · Post by **keef_haggerd** » 2005-06-19 01:22

well the m-16 vs. the SAW

for the game do this

give the M-16 a circle of fire (i forget what its actually called) of say the size of a soldier head at 50 meters

and give the SAW a COF about the size of a soldiers body at 50 meters.

since the m-16 is lighter, youll have to wait about a full second before your able to make a shot that accurate again

but the SAW as long as your keeping burst of about 5 rounds, as since there is less recoil, you can keep that COF with out having to pause for moere then half a second

i hope this makes sense? but thats my idea.

oh and as far as bipods go, the bibod should always be out, and when you go into prone by simply looking you have about 45 degree angle to look around and you have to use your move keys to reposition yourself if need to change your direction. ET did this with the mobile MG42s.

Post by **BrokenArrow** » 2005-06-19 01:43

i would imagine that the SAW has more recoil, they fire larger rounds dont they? even though the SAW is heavier it would still have more recoil.. thats why the bipod is there.... right?

Eddie Baker · Post by **Eddie Baker** » 2005-06-19 01:46

BrokenArrow wrote:i would imagine that the SAW has more recoil, they fire larger rounds dont they? even though the SAW is heavier it would still have more recoil.. thats why the bipod is there.... right?

The M249 SAW fires the same 5.56mm NATO ammunition as the M16.

Post by **BrokenArrow** » 2005-06-19 01:50

well, shows how much i know, i guess id just imagine it would have more recoil than the m16, maybe thats playing too many computer games

Eddie Baker · Post by **Eddie Baker** » 2005-06-19 02:34

BrokenArrow wrote:well, shows how much i know, i guess id just imagine it would have more recoil than the m16, maybe thats playing too many computer games

SAW uses the same cartridge as the M16 (and is also able to use its magazines) for logistics reasons. It started with the introduction of the M16A2 and its governed three-round burst, since that was what was judged that the average soldier (not just combat arms, but support troops) could most effectively use on full-automatic fire. Medium and general purpose machineguns are at the platoon and company level and don't fire the same ammunition; full-sized rifle cartridges, which you cannot carry as many of for the same weight of intermediate rifle cartridges. Normal and heavy-barrel M16A1s weren't cutting it, and the M14E1 was heavy, impossible to control at full auto and didn't fire the same ammunition. So they decided they needed a 5.56mm light machinegun in the fire team/squad, hence the name Squad Automatic Weapon.

The reason why the bipod is there is because the M249 is used for base of fire, suppression/covering fire and sustained fire (in the absence of a medium or general purpose MG). For these purposes it would normally be used from the supported position covering a maneuver. Also for these reasons it doesn't have the governed burst that the M16 does. Which also means that if you don't exercise fire discipline (5-10 round bursts), you can lose control of it and overheat it rapidly. So, in a way, it will have more recoil and torque than an M16 if you keep holding the trigger.

When in the final stages of the assault or on the objective, the SAW gunner will probably go with the armpit, hip or shoulder firing position, something you do not ordinarily see with medium machineguns and light machineguns of full-sized caliber (since they're heavy as Hell).

The reason why you see special operations lightweight versions of the SAW and M240 (Mk-46 and Mk-48, respectively) is because they use them in the assault and on the objective so frequently (CQB/direct action), so they need to be able to shoulder and pit it on the maneuver. However, they have slightly lower rates of fire, are a bit less accurate (shorter and lighter barrels) and are more easily overheated, which is why for sustained fire they will use regular MMGs. So, the situation and mission dictates the weapons used.

Post by **BrokenArrow** » 2005-06-19 03:29

well, all i can say is im glad that the devs know their stuff better than i do.

Tacamo · Post by **Tacamo** » 2005-06-19 03:43

Is it true that the SAW and it's derivatives will be getting M4-like buttstocks to replace the current one?

Eddie Baker · Post by **Eddie Baker** » 2005-06-19 04:06

Tacamo wrote:Is it true that the SAW and it's derivatives will be getting M4-like buttstocks to replace the current one?

Not sure about the US M249 SAW and Mk-46 SPW, but in the case of the Canadian forces, the C9A2 prototypes seen fielded in Afghanistan have had C8/M4 type buttstocks.

(Images courtesy of Canadian American Strategic Review)

keef_haggerd · Post by **keef_haggerd** » 2005-06-19 04:28

wow, thats crazy. i would not want to be caught in a hallway with that in front of me.

trim · Post by **trim** » 2005-06-26 04:07

I think looking in to the way that the dod people did it in there hl mod wold be a good idea for the bipods.

as for the acuracy of the wepons, they do need a little work, i can barly hit a dman thing out there and i do fier in bursts and try and do some leading when apropreate. there also needs to be some thing done on the sniper rifels, they are obcinly inacurate, much like my spelling but that is not the point, i have unloaded a hole clip of m24 rounds at one guy and mised every time luckly he did not see me tho, but yet agin i digres, that is just wrong to have a sniper wepon that inacurate