Project Reality Forums

Truism wrote:Are you actually from China? What are gun ownership laws there?

I'm actually from China. Why are you worried about China's gun ownership laws?
It's a lot of documents to go through even with connections; better to go to gunclubs and military ranges with connections instead.

I'm in U.S. right now though.

I wondered what the gun market was like. Mosins were only popular in the US when they were $40 a pop complete with cosmoline and it was only because they were so ludicrously cheap. I thought perhaps they were super popular in China or something.

The G3 and FAL are every bit as reliable as Pact small arms. Some guy didn't clean or oil his G3 for years and put hundreds of thousands of rounds through it without a failure. Just as Pact accuracy problems are overstated, Western reliability problems are overstated.

T.A.Sharps wrote: Sorry for the long posts, just some gun talk folks.



Anyways, velocity of the 7.62x54R vs the .308 won't matter for much longer since they U.S. Army is starting to convert the 308's to 300 Winchester Magnum, which has a velocity way faster than the 7.62x54R, with a heavier bullet, no matter how well you designed it, or the rifle.

-irrelevant image-

You were complaining about design of case...now you bring in everything else?

Yet still, closest competitor(7.62x51mm HATO) isn't significantly better.

Depends on when Mosin was made? You don't say... Mosin didn't always have problem with fit and finish...
You can spend $500 for a rifle designed to annihilate paper targets or around $130(retarded price increase is retarded; death to farby reenactors because the noobs bought so many postwar mosins) for a rifle with rich history of Nazi-killing.

SVD isn't more reliable than bolt action? Depends.

Speaking of military(because if you consider civis, why can't civi spend more money and get much better stuff than 7.62x51 HATO? it's pointless to consider civis), there's obviously more SVD(used by all of eastbloc countries and even China) than speshul people bolties.

A person does not just pick up a SVD and shoot 600m? Tell me more, capt. Obvious.
It's called training; just not special "sniper" training.

SVD just happens to have sniping in name...it's issued as a COMMON(employed in much bigger numbers than even DMR in u.s.) weapon that's just functionally a longer range AK with scope.

It won't matter for much longer; because if Russia feels like 7.62x54r is not good enough; there will be a better round than 300 win.magnum.

To settle the argument, the ceramic composite armor US troops use can stop 6 direct hits from a 7.62x51mm round (shots to the plates, not soft armor). French body armor is even better. Dragon Skin is garbage, especially in a hot climate.

Yes, the best conscript will get the SVD, because those armies are made up of poorly-trained conscripts used in mass attacks to make the enemy run out of ammo. It doesn't make him a good shot or the SVD a good weapon. It just means he was better than his peers. Western snipers are sent to long schools to perfect their art.

Russia uses the cartridges and weapons they have, because they are Russian. It's no different than the French using the garbage FAMAS, because it is French. The M16 is better than the AK-47 if you have any formal training (I don't give a **** about your argument, I've used both) but North Korea is not buying the M16, because it is not a North Korean weapon. It doesn't always come down to what works better. Russia also happened to have an army that was little more than a huddled mass of poor and starving gang members until recently (Putin's reforms). The Russian round has very slightly higher velocity, and the NATO round has significantly better grouping (accuracy).

Truism...I kinda chuckled at your questions about the Chinese gun market. C'mon now. If they don't allow Facebook and YouTube, do you really think they're gonna have guns? I asked a friend whose father is a PSB commissioner (Comrade will know what that is) if they had guns, she laughed at me. Even their cops didn't routinely carry firearms until recently (they have a Muslim problem too, in Kunming, Urumchi etc).

Does the PLA still use the SVD, even though they have replaced most of their other small arms with indigenous weapons?

Ragnarok1775 wrote:To settle the argument, the ceramic composite armor US troops use can stop 6 direct hits from a 7.62x51mm round (shots to the plates, not soft armor). French body armor is even better. Dragon Skin is garbage, especially in a hot climate.

Yes, the best conscript will get the SVD, because those armies are made up of poorly-trained conscripts used in mass attacks to make the enemy run out of ammo. It doesn't make him a good shot or the SVD a good weapon. It just means he was better than his peers. Western snipers are sent to long schools to perfect their art.

Russia uses the cartridges and weapons they have, because they are Russian. It's no different than the French using the garbage FAMAS, because it is French. The M16 is better than the AK-47 if you have any formal training (I don't give a **** about your argument, I've used both) but North Korea is not buying the M16, because it is not a North Korean weapon. It doesn't always come down to what works better. Russia also happened to have an army that was little more than a huddled mass of poor and starving gang members until recently (Putin's reforms). The Russian round has very slightly higher velocity, and the NATO round has significantly better grouping (accuracy).

Truism...I kinda chuckled at your questions about the Chinese gun market. C'mon now. If they don't allow Facebook and YouTube, do you really think they're gonna have guns? I asked a friend whose father is a PSB commissioner (Comrade will know what that is) if they had guns, she laughed at me. Even their cops didn't routinely carry firearms until recently (they have a Muslim problem too, in Kunming, Urumchi etc).

Does the PLA still use the SVD, even though they have replaced most of their other small arms with indigenous weapons?

And 6b23 can stop .300 win. magnum without spalling. None of that means the one wearing the vest will be intact after shot.

There isn't a significantly better grouping at where both rifles(74m and 16a4)'s rounds function well.
It's about the difference of a torso shot or head shot at ~300m.

PLA is sort of like Russia; old stuff does not get thrown away(unless they are too old like type 56 gear).

Last time I checked, units in middle of nowhere still have "SVD"; partly because QBU-88 sucked back when it didn't have dedicated round and dedicated 5.8mm round for it is still(while better than 5.56 and 5.45 round for long range) too tiny.

Cops didn't routinely carry guns until recently indeed; it was because MP was supposed to be everywhere but recent terrorist attacks(with...knives...) made cops' lack of power look bad.

T.A.Sharps wrote:Thank you for voicing the "indigenous political" reasons that a region of the world has limited their military equipment to the 7.62x54R since 1891, I was trying not too though its 100% accurate.

The real reason for a region of world that has too much 7.62x54r is because the West didn't send enough bodies to be fed them when there was not enough Nazi(Although I must say that Ukraine looks promising).
And the only time Russia's army was a mob was back in Chechnya; Soviet Union's failure caused it.

7.62x51mm is significantly better than anything else out there; therefore must make a switch to .300 win. magnum, right?

Your "argument" veered off course and you say mine did???

Depends, because there are terrible bolt action rifles(most are from Japan).

Read more; what I posted clearly does not mean what you think it means judging by your response.

You still didn't read... My point was that SVD is made as just a more accurate/longer range AK(practically, not technically); it only needs basic marksmanship(in case you didn't notice; that's basic for any rifleman) training.

You are wrong. SVD was designed from the ground up as squad support weapon that just gives a section more reach; it wasn't a sniper rifle in your western definition.
And if it wasn't designed with accuracy in mind; it would have a stamped receiver and full stroke piston just like AK(that would be the PSL).

123 years and no other army issued anything good enough to justify switching to a new system. How terrible.

Indigenous political reasons...well as much as I am not a fan of the CPC or their equivalents elsewhere, the PLA absolutely should be using Chinese weapons, putting China first. I would love to see US troops using American-made weapons (well they are all built in the US, but some of the designs belong to other countries, like the SAW and 240). Only third-world and poverty-stricken former Soviet-bloc countries use a lot of foreign weapons anymore.

In the interest of realism, the Irregular factions should be allowed to blind-fire around buildings and shoot up intravenous drugs to keep from crapping themselves. Maybe gearing their kit more towards underhanded tactics (human shield, IED) etc...in Asscrackistan there was a time or two where they wore ACUs (taken from dead or bought on the open market, still don't understand why people sell that and their body armor on eBay...).

Even though armor stops a lot, you can still get broken ribs, or at a minimum you will be knocked backwards a few feet. At the right angle, rounds can actually deflect upward (if you get shot from below) and go into your head.

Most of the Irregular factions don't have any formal training. They are not very good at shooting, especially at a distance. In Iraq, the few that were any good were trained by Iran or were in fact Iranian soldiers (Quds). In Afghanistan, they are trained in camps in Pakistan. If we wanna be realistic, then like I said above, small arms fire ought to be a last resort for them, and focus more on dirty tricks.

T.A.Sharps wrote:ANYWAY...

The original point I was trying to make with this tread was that is is nice to have the crappy bolt action rifles, the Mosin and Enfield, finally be usable.

Though I don't agree with, what seems like, the hit box was made "1 shot and down" across the whole body, even with body armor, for all 30 cal rifles.

With the open sights being hard to accurately aim with the view distance (200 meters being more like 400), and slow rate of fire, it was hard to land the second hit needed.

In a perfect PR world, I would rather see the bolt action open sight rifles have the one shot drop ability, but scoped rifles still have to hit a non-armored target area (legs head, or arms), and still not drop the character in one shot to the body armor, but give a 13-15 second bleed out like before..

I am not sure though if the hit boxes would have to be redone, which would be more complicated I imagine, or if just the damage level of the rifles.


ComradeHX
Start posting some facts and numbers to support yourself, and we can continue the discussion.

In your "perfect" PR world bolt action rifles is completely f**ked. Because adding a scope would make it not down someone in one hit; while sniper rifle deviation is already taking longer than usual to settle.

What should be done is make all sniper rifles fail to kill in one shot when hitting torso.

Even in point blank, a Mosin can't kill someone in one shot if shot upper torso(I have shot a Blufor with it in close range, he didn't go down and started spraying with easymode m4 and I heard him drop patch after I went down from the last few shots of 30 round mag).

Your "facts" supported my statement.

T.A.Sharps wrote: Though the irregular factions' kits in PR are made to reflect what you are talking about. INS factions especially.

It used to.

Now with civi rule change, it's mostly gone.

Sharps, I was being just a little sarcastic about that, note the IV drug use commentary...

Usually if someone is hit by a sniper, they are not going to be treated by a combat medic/auxsan and then be back in the fight anyway. Those are MEDEVAC-level injuries, even to the limbs. The armor does keep you alive, it can often stop the round, but it doesn't just bounce off like Iron Man, you will feel it and get knocked over and a few feet, with a good chance of some broken ribs. It's a lot better than a hole in your chest, though. If you get hit in the side (soft armor, not in the plates) with an intermediate cartridge, you better have good life insurance.

I guess there's no way to simulate MEDEVAC/CASEVAC etc here...

Ragnarok1775 wrote:Sharps, I was being just a little sarcastic about that, note the IV drug use commentary...

Usually if someone is hit by a sniper, they are not going to be treated by a combat medic/auxsan and then be back in the fight anyway. Those are MEDEVAC-level injuries, even to the limbs. The armor does keep you alive, it can often stop the round, but it doesn't just bounce off like Iron Man, you will feel it and get knocked over and a few feet, with a good chance of some broken ribs. It's a lot better than a hole in your chest, though. If you get hit in the side (soft armor, not in the plates) with an intermediate cartridge, you better have good life insurance.

I guess there's no way to simulate MEDEVAC/CASEVAC etc here...

I always wanted(and have suggested) a system of having medic "reviving" someone but it only cause people to instantly be able to respawn instead of having to wait to bleed out.

Obviously not perfect; but it's a lot better than stab people in *** with epipen and they pop up like they never got shot/grenaded/ranover.

Hmmm...maybe if they are "revived" as you said, they can respawn at a rally point, but if they are not, then they have to respawn at main...? I mean, if someone is gonna die, and you're not really far from a forward outpost (FOB has restaurants and Internet), there's no incentive to revive him or anything. It makes death a little more harsh if they can only use "deployable spawn points" when they are "revived".

ComradeHX wrote:I always wanted(and have suggested) a system of having medic "reviving" someone but it only cause people to instantly be able to respawn instead of having to wait to bleed out.

Obviously not perfect; but it's a lot better than stab people in *** with epipen and they pop up like they never got shot/grenaded/ranover.

Really interesting idea. I'm definitely up for making getting shot more punishing. One thing I think PR needs more is the fear of getting shot. You can't make people as cautious as they would be in real life, obviously, but the current revive system certainly doesn't encourage cautious play IMHO. And gunning most of a squad down only to have the last guy kill you and revive all of his squadmates can definitely be frustrating.

Well if any of you played before 0.8 patch you would remember that when shot to the head, or exploded with grenades one was instantly dead dead, unrevivable, they changed it to promote teamwork (magic medics), because teamwork > realism (ofc it's the opposite when we demand a little zoom for unscoped rifles, they could even work a system like second zoom on snipers to preserve peripheral vision) and then began the restricting of the rally points, the slow- down of gameplay. Again if i remember the deviation of the unscoped rifles is faster settling because of gameplay > realism reasons. It might not be the case in the latest version thou.

Ragnarok1775 wrote:Hmmm...maybe if they are "revived" as you said, they can respawn at a rally point, but if they are not, then they have to respawn at main...? I mean, if someone is gonna die, and you're not really far from a forward outpost (FOB has restaurants and Internet), there's no incentive to revive him or anything. It makes death a little more harsh if they can only use "deployable spawn points" when they are "revived".

No revive = 5minutes of waiting in addition to however long it takes for player to run back from nearest spawn.

The system has another benefit: medics from other squads won't have to be pressured about reviving/healing you while his squad is continuing to move forward.

Very often I see medics only heal his own squadmate and leave every other downed player on team to bleed out; we didn't get integrated Mumble just for that s**t to happen.