Machine Gun recoil NEEDS to be increased (and other things)

[Fearlessdot]

I have fired a 7.62 mm machine gun (the Bren gun) and that thing still has quite a bit of recoil with the bipod

You fired a machinegun from WWII...weapons weren't as advanced as they are today...

[jbgeezer]

2. Iron Sights need to be smaller. especially on the M16. They are smaller than the last version, but they are still far too big.

Are u crazy!? They are to dams small as they are! You cant hit anything at range with irons anymore because its to hard to aim, becaues the sights are to small

[Proff3ssorXman]

Also, you reload the weapon every time, when you switch back from deployed to undeployed, why should anyone do that? Is there a magic connection between the bipod and the feed mechanism, that throws your belt out, when you fold the bipod back in?

It's because the 'undeployed' and 'deployed' are two seperate animations. So when you press 3 it gives you the animation that you are pulling the gun out, checking the ammo etc. Deployed has it's own little animation as you know.
Anyway, you can't have two animations for each gun, so every time you press 3 you have to check your ammo and fold the stock back out again.

Crazy, but that's the only way the DEV's could do it - BF2 Hardcodedness.

Cheers

[Truism]

1. Good job with the way the machine guns work. It looks very pretty. The only large problem I see, is the way the deployed mode works. The recoil is NON existence. I have fired a 7.62 mm machine gun (the Bren gun) and that thing still has quite a bit of recoil with the bipod. I mean.. If ur supposed to be screwing down the bipod on the ground ur resting the gun on... fine no recoil. But no recoil, with just resting it on the ground? it just looks and will feel ridiculous.

The Bren fires the .303 British, which is a notoriously overpowered round. The .303 will comfortably penetrate two brick walls and still carry enough force to enter a man's skull. It will travel through more than 7 men fatally, and retains deadly energy at engagement ranges comparable to modern sniper rounds. Additionally, it's a 7.7mm round, not 7.62mm. If you wanted to compare it to any other round, the old Mauser 7.92mm would probably be the best, and they were used around the same time (just before the turn of the century to about 1950).

Comparing a true underpowered, intermediate, assault rifle cartridge like the 5.56x45mm NATO to long, old school bolt action rifle rounds like the .303 is misleading. A .303 carries about twice the energy of a 5.56mm, and obviously that means the reaction to throwing it out the front of your gun is going to be a tiny bit stronger.

The Bren is also a little heavier than the SAW, but the SAW is at least two generations, maybe three or four ahead of it in terms of techonology and engineering. The SAW is very well known for being incredibly easy to manage in prolonged bursts. A better comparison to the Bren would be an unmounted FN MAG which fires a full powered (though not quite as powerful as a .303) 7.62NATO round. The MAG is a tiny bit heaier heavier and fires a somewhat less powerful round, but more due to newer and more fandangled technology likely has much less recoil than the comparable Bren. But don't take my word on this, I'm just guessing.


Not to pull the conversation off topic or anything, but how do others feel about greater punishments for overheating barrels in PR, and introducing overheating on infantry LMG's?

Personally I can't even begin to imagine why we don't have it already...

[M_Striker]

The Bren fires the .303 British, which is a notoriously overpowered round. The .303 will comfortably penetrate two brick walls and still carry enough force to enter a man's skull. It will travel through more than 7 men fatally, and retains deadly energy at engagement ranges comparable to modern sniper rounds. Additionally, it's a 7.7mm round, not 7.62mm. If you wanted to compare it to any other round, the old Mauser 7.92mm would probably be the best, and they were used around the same time (just before the turn of the century to about 1950).

Comparing a true underpowered, intermediate, assault rifle cartridge like the 5.56x45mm NATO to long, old school bolt action rifle rounds like the .303 is misleading. A .303 carries about twice the energy of a 5.56mm, and obviously that means the reaction to throwing it out the front of your gun is going to be a tiny bit stronger.

The Bren is also a little heavier than the SAW, but the SAW is at least two generations, maybe three or four ahead of it in terms of techonology and engineering. The SAW is very well known for being incredibly easy to manage in prolonged bursts. A better comparison to the Bren would be an unmounted FN MAG which fires a full powered (though not quite as powerful as a .303) 7.62NATO round. The MAG is a tiny bit heaier heavier and fires a somewhat less powerful round, but more due to newer and more fandangled technology likely has much less recoil than the comparable Bren. But don't take my word on this, I'm just guessing.


Not to pull the conversation off topic or anything, but how do others feel about greater punishments for overheating barrels in PR, and introducing overheating on infantry LMG's?

Personally I can't even begin to imagine why we don't have it already...

I am already convicned .303 is not 7.62, Thanks for the info. I think this topic can be closed.

[General Dragosh]

Gotta love catridge history lessons

[TheOak82]

SAW recoil standing or crouched is too much:
YouTube - M249 SAW

[Hitperson]

damn why did we get rid of the 303??

if only we had used it in the SLR.

[General Dragosh]

damn why did we get rid of the 303??

if only we had used it in the SLR.

lower the cost ?

my thoughts

[Bob_Marley]

The Bren fires the .303 British, which is a notoriously overpowered round.

Depends on the version, the L4, by far the longest serving of the Brens (introduced in 1958, it was finally phased out by the British in the 1990s [offically, its possible there are still a few gathering dust in an armoury somewhere] and essentially the same thing is still made in India), fires 7.62x51mm NATO. Distinguishable due to its rather straighter magazine than the classic "bannana" type used on the .303 Bren and the slot type flash hider rather than the older cone type.

damn why did we get rid of the 303??

if only we had used it in the SLR.

Because its a rimmed type cartrage which means it tends to jam in double stack magazines. Also, NATO standardisation.

[Schlapperklange]

Is the caliber realy the important thing on recoil?

I mean it sure has a meaning, but: The main difference between a MG42/MG3 and a SAW is not the caliber - it's how the gun works!

The MG3 for example is a recoil-loaded weapon ... the SAW is gas-operated. That means the MG3 uses and needs the recoil for reloading (moving the bolt back), the SAW uses pressure from inside the barrel thats redirected back to the bolt/piston (to move it back).
The recoil operated weapon has a more direct recoil, while the recoil of the gas operated gun is a little later and smoother.

By the way, the Bren is gas operated as far as I know. It fires .303 (Bren Mk.1-4) and 7.62x51 (Bren L4A4) rounds.