Project Reality Forums

The problem of M16 isn't just recoil but also thick unprecise sights it is a paint to kill something at distance with.
Also agree on recoil but I meant especially L85 rifles and HK53 which is nothing compared to M16 due to high recoil.
And then scoped L85 seems to have higher recoil than M4 despite the lower rate of fire.

All weapons using 5.56 NATO should have less recoil.

ive been banging on about this since .5 was introduced. i strongly believe that the recoil levels should be reverted to .4 because ive shot the ak47 and it has lower recoil than what is portrayed in the game

infact some versions like the ak74 have zero muzzle climb when shot at full auto. see for yourself

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ac1_1173801048

I think a big part of the recoil is compensation for the fact that in the BF2 engine there is no aim swaying, and likewise no bullet deviation in PR. If the weapons had their real life recoils then it would be almost no problem to kill anybody at a distance with one or two shots with any gun. There is nothing comparable in the BF2 engine to compensate for steady aim and skill in real life.

So recoil is high to make the players take their time to aim after each shot and so its a bit harder to hit targets at longer ranges.

Ideally there should be some system that has scope drift depending on shooting stance and motion but I dont think thats possible in the BF2 engine.

Fine line to walk, at what point does realism give way to fun and balance.

All modern assault rifles have the recoil back down the stock so there is minimal barrel lift, this is especially true on bullpup weapons like the SA80 and it's variables. In theory, the British and Chinese rifles should be significantly better at medium and short ranges than the US or MEC rifles.

Something to consider though, even if there is minimal vertical recoil, there is still recoil, as it knocks back down the stock you are going to get a variation of bullets in 360 degrees, rather just up. Either way, full auto is pretty useless at anything but close range.

In the OP video, is the M16 at the end being fired in full-auto, rather than three-round burst?

DrMcCleod wrote:In the OP video, is the M16 at the end being fired in full-auto, rather than three-round burst?

Its an M16A1, the one used in Vietnam that has full auto.

M4 is perfect(maybe a lower recoil on the double tap), G3 is perfect, Type 95 too, L85 needs a little tweak and the m16 major tweak, mainly lower recoil.
I always have my G3 on semi, when I see an enemy soldier at range I can usually take them down in 3 shots. I usually lie down somewhere where enemy soldiers cross, a road for example, then it's very easy to take them down even whilst sprinting. What I like about the M4 is its sights and good CQB performance. When I engage someone at range I usually duck and aim/adjust and then shoot a single shot at the head, which usually takes them down in one shot. Or if that doesn't work a few double taps to get their head down and then rush to finish them of at close range.

zizler wrote:M4 is perfect(maybe a lower recoil on the double tap), G3 is perfect, Type 95 too, L85 needs a little tweak and the m16 major tweak, mainly lower recoil.
I always have my G3 on semi, when I see an enemy soldier at range I can usually take them down in 3 shots. I usually lie down somewhere where enemy soldiers cross, a road for example, then it's very easy to take them down even whilst sprinting. What I like about the M4 is its sights and good CQB performance. When I engage someone at range I usually duck and aim/adjust and then shoot a single shot at the head, which usually takes them down in one shot. Or if that doesn't work a few double taps to get their head down and then rush to finish them of at close range.

I really don't feel M16 being so bad. I would say that it is very similar to L85 + has higher rate of fire, only sights are bad.
The only weapon that needs major tweaking is HK53 IMO.

M16 in urban areas is **** for me.

DirtyHarry88 wrote:M16 in urban areas is **** for me.

It's supposed to be **** in urban areas.. the weapon is too big for real CQB.

I believe that M16 burst mode is very good in CQB, maybe superior to G3. My only small complain about m16 is that its recoil is just a bit higher (but it is nothing serious).

M4 is ideal.

I think the G3 and AK47s own the M16 in CQB, and I despise going into a city as USMC because of this. They are fully automatic and only take 2 shots or so to kill a US soldier, whereas the M16 takes 4shots = 2 bursts to take down a target wearing body armour. The M4 is the US's only hope in CQB, yet you get called a n00b if you use it regularly and everyone complains about the M4 whores.

And if the M16 is too big for urban areas, what about the G3 and AK47? The G3 especially, is more akin to a true battle rifle ala the M14, than an assault rifle. And the M14 is crazy uncontrollable on full auto, but I've never fired a G3 so I don't know.

bobfish wrote:It's supposed to be **** in urban areas.. the weapon is too big for real CQB.

But its size has nothing to do with it being **** in game.

DirtyHarry88 wrote:But its size has nothing to do with it being **** in game.

True.. personally my only problem with the US weapons is the lack of full auto, I don't have a problem being effective with any of the kits of any of the armies.

I think if they do decide to a balance pass on weapons they should take into consideration their combat roles, the m16 just isn't used in CQB if it can be avoided, thats one of the main reasons special forces use the m4, it's shorter barrel and lighter, better suited to CQB. What the USMC could probably use is a different weapon on one of the other kits.. something that would suit CQB other than the spec ops kit.

Also, is it just me or are the M16 sights a bit... Well... Fat? (Anyone fired a M16 here?) They look a bit bulky to me, much more so than any other weapon in the game. I know this is the stock version, perhaps when we get the M16A4 we will get a new model/ better ironsights? (Because quite frankly the current one looks like a piece of cardboard when you look at it in the hands of other players, on high settings.)

Oh and yeah, recoil should be lowered etc. Burst fire in anything other than CQB is a joke, and it shouldn't be that way, to my knowledge.

Quick fix - make it damn difficult to hit a close range target on any burst or auto setting while moving - huge cone of fire under those conditions.

Personally though, I haven't had a problem with the m16 in CQB so much as seen (and participated in) the ability of the G3 and MEC Spec Ops weapon to pwn at very close range without ironsights. I haven't had as much success with the m16 in CQB.

Then again, all armies have their weaknesses and their strengths. If the USA team has a problem with CQB they should engage at medium to long ranges.

Exactly, the m16 isn't a CQB weapon, it shouldn't own any of the other weapons in the game at CQB.

bobfish wrote:Exactly, the m16 isn't a CQB weapon, it shouldn't own any of the other weapons in the game at CQB.

Right on man...

the recoil and other characteristics (in this game) is fine on the M16, try controlling the weapon instead of letting the rifle jump. BTW its kind of weird that the L85s seems to have almost no recoil effect in this game...

The sights of weapons (when aiming) are somewhat funny. If you were seeing them that big IRL, you would take your eye out with each shot from the recoil.

I play with a 19" LCD, maybe they would look right on a 14" fishbowl.

TII wrote: They are fully automatic and only take 2 shots or so to kill a US soldier, whereas the M16 takes 4shots = 2 bursts to take down a target wearing body armour.

No, not at all, 3 shots = 1 burst