Will there be a change to M4 and recoil

General discussion of the Project Reality: BF2 modification.
Ghostrider
Retired PR Developer
Posts: 2585
Joined: 2006-01-04 02:56

Post by Ghostrider »

Sonic Boyster wrote:[...]yet I was under the impression that 3 round burst is a 3 round burst because it is the optimal compromise between firing accuracy and damage output.
The optimal compromise is a 2 round burst. The 3 round burst will not be implemented in future US weapons --I *think* that the FN SCAR will implement this?--. The reason for this is that the guns are designed to absorb the recoil of the first shot, and allow the shooter to make the 2nd shot with almost the same accuracy as the first...the problem is that when the 2nd shot is made, the recoil is absorbed by the shooter and not the gun, and the 3rd round isnt as accurate as you'd like it to be.

I'm sure if you look that up you'll find it. I just don't happen to know the names of the internal pieces that make that happen, so I owe you that..


-Ghost
MrD
Posts: 3399
Joined: 2006-05-13 16:21

Post by MrD »

When you fire the L81A1/2 on automatic and squeeze the trigger once you get two rounds out. 3 rounds is too much to handle really, never did understand why the M16 has to fire 3 rounds at a time.
Image
[R-MOD]Mongolian Dude:
AH man, sarcasm is so hard to get across the web, even if we are both british :(
[R-DEV]Jaymz: That has to be...the most epic response to a welcome thread I have ever seen. [R-CON]Mr.D ladies and gentlemen!
Rico11b
Posts: 900
Joined: 2006-05-23 20:36

Post by Rico11b »

Bodybag2224 wrote:I hope the M249 doesn't get a recoil increase, it is already impossible to lay down suppressive fire since you need to recenter the gun after a 10 round burst. If recoil gets increased for support then you'd have to implement the soldier getting up and picking up his weapon because after a 3 round burst the gun would turn into an AA weapon, or just pop out of the soldiers hand.

On another note, in the military who gets the M4 carbine? I was looking up on it on the internet, and watching shows on History Channel (ShootOut, and Dogfights rock) and I noticed that squad leaders/commanders almost always were carrying an M4 weapon. Was that just coincidence or is that how it is determined?
Hi:

Most of the time when firing a machine gun in real life the rule of thumb is to fire a 6 to 9 round burst. Then reacquire the target or target area and fire another 6 to 9 round burst. You NEVER just hold down the trigger until the ammo is gone. Firing using a 6 to 9 round burst saves ammo, provides better accuracy, and most importantly it prevents the gun barrel from heating up so fast. Back in the days of the M60 7.62mm machine gun you would carry a spare barrel around with you to change out when the barrel would get to hot. Usually that would be done every 2 to 300 rounds or so depending on how much you were firing. I've seen the barrels on M60s and SAWs get so hot that they actually would glow in the dark. That is something that you REALLY don't want to touch. Or even get close to for that matter. I've been burned lots of times by brushing up against a hot gun barrel, and that really wakes you up :) In General suppressive fire is controlled 6 to 9 round bursts.

As far as the M4 goes, most of the time it's the Special Operations soldiers that carried that weapon, regardless of rank. It's more slot dependent than it is rank dependent. Special Operations doesn't just mean Green Berets. It includes Airborne Infantry Divisions, like 82nd Airborne, and the 101st Air Assault, Special Forces Groups, and Army Rangers. It also includes Navy Seals, and SAS troops just to name a few. All branches of the military have Special Operations troops, even the Air Force. The military doesn't just assign that weapon to soldiers cause it looks cool. It's a smaller rifle because it needs to be. Remember that most Spec Ops soldier operating behind enemy lines DON'T want to be discovered. No need for a full sized rifle when it is harder to hide it. The old saying goes" Pack light freezes at night". Spec Op soldiers want to avoid getting into a fire fight, not go looking for one. Their mission is more of a secret nature, so they are not moving around shooting and everything on the battlefield. They only fire their rifles if they have to. They are ELITE INFANTRY SOLDIERS, and they can really kick a lot of *** on the battlefield, but their mission doesn't always call for that. Most of the time stealth is more important than fire power. You can't hit what you can not see or hear right :) Sorry for ranting on and on. I'll hush now :)

Later
dunkellic
Posts: 1809
Joined: 2006-02-07 15:41

Post by dunkellic »

you shure, thought the g36 did have a three round burst - just looked it up, youre right, two round burst

as for the three round burst, i once read that the idea was, that the first two bullets will hit the target, or at least the point the shooter did aim at and that the third round had the chance to hit it too, if it was lucky
Image
Sneak Attack
Posts: 574
Joined: 2006-12-31 00:14

Post by Sneak Attack »

rico11b wrote:ALL of the weapons in PRMM 0.4 need more recoil, especially the M4 rifle. The M4, in real life is not as accurate as the M16A2. It has a shorter barrel meaning a slower muzzle velocity, which means a shorter range. It is perceived to be more accurate, just because it has a little scope on it. If you fire both weapons side by side you will find that the M16A2 is slightly more accurate. Later
actually the M4 has a higher muzzle velocity then the M16, due to the barrel having a 1:12 twist instead of a 1:9 twist that you will find in a M16, BUT the twist doesnt over compensate the shorter barrel for accuracy so in the end its still slightly less accurate. dont worry, im not disagreeing with you, the m4 is completely ridiculous and has like 0 recoil which really needs to be changed.

though i dont see why everybody is saying it is "nerfed" nothing needs to be done to the stopping power, make it still kill you but just have a slower rate of fire with less accuracy and it will be a verrry niccccea.
Ferocious_Imbecile
Posts: 884
Joined: 2005-11-22 06:52

Post by Ferocious_Imbecile »

I want the M14 in version .5. And I don't want to have to ask any squad leader for it either. All they ever offer me in return for my requests is a bottle of booze.
[img]http://www.armedassault.eu"][img]72e6a0e6.gif[/img]
Rico11b
Posts: 900
Joined: 2006-05-23 20:36

Post by Rico11b »

Sneak Attack wrote:actually the M4 has a higher muzzle velocity then the M16, due to the barrel having a 1:12 twist instead of a 1:9 twist that you will find in a M16, BUT the twist doesnt over compensate the shorter barrel for accuracy so in the end its still slightly less accurate. dont worry, im not disagreeing with you, the m4 is completely ridiculous and has like 0 recoil which really needs to be changed...


What??? How the hell can rate of twist determine muzzle velocity???

Look:

Rate of twist does NOT determine muzzle velocity, but length of barrel does! A 16-inch barrel will ALWAYS have a lower muzzle velocity than a 20-inch barrel as long as you are firing the same rounds. Regardless of "rate of twist". The rate of twist is the same on the M4, M16A2, and the M249 SAW. Which is 1:7 not 1:9 or 1:12. The 1:12 rate of twist was used on the M16A1 rifle. The 1:12 rate of twist has not been used since the M16A2 entered service many years ago. The M16A1 rifle fired a 55-grain FMJ bullet at a muzzle velocity of about 3250 fps, while the M16A2 fires a 62 grain FMJ bullet at a muzzle velocity of about 3100 fps. The M4 will fire the same round even slower than 3100 fps. 150 fps doesn't sound like much but it makes a big deal down range. On average you can figure anywhere from 25 to 50 fps loss per inch of barrel loss. The heavier 62-grain bullet needs to spin faster in order to stabilize the bullet during flight. This is why they moved to the 1:7 rate of twist. The 62-grain bullet will begin to tumble and go off course after about 100 to 150 meters if the 1:12 rate of twist is used. When you move to a heavier bullet within the same caliber (5.56mm) the bullet get longer and longer. Longer bullets need to spin faster in order to stabilize. There are formulas to determine the correct spin needed for a given bullet weight and caliber, but I'm not going into all that.

Actually you are way off, but I’m not disagreeing with you either :) I'm not tryin to be a ********, but I know what I'm talking about here. But really who cares, it’s a game right. Let’s forget all the math and just play.
dunkellic
Posts: 1809
Joined: 2006-02-07 15:41

Post by dunkellic »

haha, i´ll go ahead and nitpick ;)
1) when a barrel gets too long the bullets actually gets less acclerated
2) the twist can affect muzzle velocity, because through it, the accleration energy forward is beeing transformed into energy neccesary to spin the bullet (this is explained a bit wrong, but i suck at physics in english) -> the more spin ->weaker bullet - but that is only a veeery small amount ^^
Image
Rico11b
Posts: 900
Joined: 2006-05-23 20:36

Post by Rico11b »

dunkellic wrote:haha, i´ll go ahead and nitpick ;)
1) when a barrel gets too long the bullets actually gets less acclerated
2) the twist can affect muzzle velocity, because through it, the accleration energy forward is beeing transformed into energy neccesary to spin the bullet (this is explained a bit wrong, but i suck at physics in english) -> the more spin ->weaker bullet - but that is only a veeery small amount ^^

On point number 1 you are somewhat correct. If a barrel is tooooo long, then yes it can cause a bullet to begin to slow down before leaving the muzzle. However we are discussing the difference between a 16-inch barrel and a 20-inch barrel. For a rifle barrel to begin to do what you suggest then that rifle barrel would have to be 35 to 40 inches or more. Certainly not a 20 inch barrel. Most Varmint hunting rifles have barrels that are 24 to 26 inches long, and those barrels because of length can and will cause the M855 bullets used by the military to go even faster. I've even seen a 28.5-inch barrel on a rifle. Neither of which I would want to carry into combat.

On point number 2. In these mass produced rifles the "rate of twist" has NOTHING to do with muzzle velocity. Never has never will. A rifle barrel has "rifling" cut into the barrel at a given "rate of twist" for ONE purpose, and ONE purpose only. That is to spin the bullet so that it is stable during its trip to the intended target. If a bullet is NOT spinning fast enough to stabilize then it will begin to wobble and drift off course, thus destroying any hopes at accuracy. Yes you can OVER spin a bullet, but that doesn't degrade accuracy nearly as much as UNDER spinning one.

Please can we put this to bed now. The topic has to do with the M4 and its recoil (or lack thereof). Simply put the M4 is not as accurate as the M16A2. It is only a perception that it is more accurate, because it has a scope on it. In reality it is not. It really doesn't matter the reason(s). I'm still voting for much more recoil on all RIFLES in Project Reality *.* I've been told that this has already been addressed in the next update. Hurray!!!

I have been around rifles, and shooting sports most of my life. Not to mention my time in the Military. I hunt, and also reload my own ammo for hunting and target shooting. One of which is the 5.56mm ball ammo. It's cheaper to reload, and it's fun. Not to mention I can get a LOT better accuracy from my reloads than if I ordered a case of M855 ball ammo. Sorry for being long-winded again, I won’t waste anyone else’s time responding to this. Sorry :)

Later
dunkellic
Posts: 1809
Joined: 2006-02-07 15:41

Post by dunkellic »

rico11b wrote:....

On point number 2. In these mass produced rifles the "rate of twist" has NOTHING to do with muzzle velocity. Never has never will. A rifle barrel has "rifling" cut into the barrel at a given "rate of twist" for ONE purpose, and ONE purpose only. That is to spin the bullet so that it is stable during its trip to the intended target. If a bullet is NOT spinning fast enough to stabilize then it will begin to wobble and drift off course, thus destroying any hopes at accuracy. Yes you can OVER spin a bullet, but that doesn't degrade accuracy nearly as much as UNDER spinning one.
....
yes, i do not doubt any of that, i just wanted to point out, that if you would give a rifle an extreme rifling, you could actually affect the speed/velocity/force of it - but it was more of a joke ;)
Image
e-Gor
Retired PR Developer
Posts: 3752
Joined: 2006-03-06 22:40

Post by e-Gor »

The very presence of rifling slows down the bullet. More or less twist will have an effect on the speed, but an incredibly tiny one. In a perfectly smooth barrel, all the gas released from the detonation will be caught behind the bullet, forcing it forwards. With rifling, gas is escaping past the bullet, travelling at an angle, so spinning it. Less twist, and more gas can escape through the rifling channels, so won't be used to propel the bullet forwards. Dunkellic's point is flawed in that not all the energy from the detonation is transferred to the bullet.

Terribly pedantic, I know :)

Also, a greater twist in the rifling doesn't necessarily mean greater spin. Like the barrel length, there'll be a sweet spot (probably dependent on barrel length and bullet type).

But that's all coming from the standpoint of a mathematician/physicist, not a weapon expert. There may be other factors I'm missing. And like dunkellic's reply, this isn't entirely serious, so let's not start a flame war. :)
Rico11b
Posts: 900
Joined: 2006-05-23 20:36

Post by Rico11b »

dunkellic wrote:yes, i do not doubt any of that, i just wanted to point out, that if you would give a rifle an extreme rifling, you could actually affect the speed/velocity/force of it - but it was more of a joke ;)

Oh, snap. Jokes on me... Hahahaha......... Good one dude.

Later
Rico11b
Posts: 900
Joined: 2006-05-23 20:36

Post by Rico11b »

'[R-DEV wrote:e-Gor']The very presence of rifling slows down the bullet. More or less twist will have an effect on the speed, but an incredibly tiny one. In a perfectly smooth barrel, all the gas released from the detonation will be caught behind the bullet, forcing it forwards. With rifling, gas is escaping past the bullet, travelling at an angle, so spinning it. Less twist, and more gas can escape through the rifling channels, so won't be used to propel the bullet forwards. Dunkellic's point is flawed in that not all the energy from the detonation is transferred to the bullet.

Terribly pedantic, I know :)

Also, a greater twist in the rifling doesn't necessarily mean greater spin. Like the barrel length, there'll be a sweet spot (probably dependent on barrel length and bullet type).

But that's all coming from the standpoint of a mathematician/physicist, not a weapon expert. There may be other factors I'm missing. And like dunkellic's reply, this isn't entirely serious, so let's not start a flame war. :)


The differences you are referring to can not be measured so there is no concrete proof of that. You are also referring to extremes. Keep in mind that the bullet is has already exited the barrel before the flash is even seen. Gas escaping from the barrel doesn't cause the bullet to spin. The rifling inside the barrel does that. When a projectile is a round ball you can use a smooth bore, but when it's long and narrow it must be spun like a football in order to stabilize it. If you don't spin it at the correct rate (or near correct rate) it will begin to tumble and may break apart after about 100 to 200 meters. Which would really suck :)

If anyone disagrees with any of this, then go and educate yourselves on rifle Ballistics. I'm sure you all can find a wealth on knowledge on the WWW. I agree, I don't want to start a flaming war on this so I'll just be quiet now. None of this is important anyway. The game engine can't model any of this **** anyway. Besides I don't want to argue with anyone in the PR realm. I just want to team up with ya and accomplish the squad's mission :)

Later
Post Reply

Return to “PR:BF2 General Discussion”