Project Reality Forums

BlackwaterEddie wrote:The problem is KP, as im sure youll agree, there isnt any less powerful weapons available for the MEC apart from the HK53 (and that obscure shotgun that i cant remember the name of), id like to see some weapons that would actually be suitable for the CQB fighting which this game is based around.

The HK53 is darn well one of the greatest weapons in the game IMO.

And the shotgun is a Saiga 12K.

I'd like to see some other weapons, too, but I think the current loadout is actually pretty decent for both sides.

BROWNING9MMSURPRISE wrote:Stop talking about the HK, its settled.
The 5.56 vs 7.62 debate is about the 7.62x39mm Soviet round, not the 7.62 NATO. It is an M16 vs AK47 debate. Like I said, get a friggin clue before ruining the thread. And blackwater, tahts exactly what I was getting at. The G3 needs to be more powerful and have mroe recoil in the game.

No, the debate is in fact about 7.62 NATO and appears in just about every thread suggesting to up the 7.62 recoil - which, might I add, is quite a few - with loads of arguments, and never getting a final answer. The 7.62 NATO vs. 5.56 NATO issue has so many factors (fragmentation, muzzle velocity, mass, loss of velocity over distance, tumbling, etc.) that you can't really model it properly in PR.

Its an M16 vs AK debate?, funny that, i thought the topic was "G3 Needs Adjusting!!" making it a 7.62 NATO debate?

Browning calm down....seriously.
And I thought I had angermanagment problems.

They were only stating that the MEC SF weapon was infact the Hk53.

Sure, the G3 needs adjusting, but so do all the weapons and it won't until v1.0 when the weapons are fine tuned and feel right.

Then again, everyone hs different opinions on recoil.

Very true Viking, some people can control it better (bringing the mouse down after each round expended) while others curse every time their reticule goes crazy.

PR should be adjusting these things Browning, and im sure theyll take what they can from this thread to better the game.

^Look at the constructive, polite posts. Very good, guys.

You should learn from them, Browning, and calm down. No point getting excited unless a Dev shows you a WIP picture of something.

Recoil is not a matter of opinion and I believe I said more than once that the problem with the G3 in the game is not merely a matter of recoil. A 7.62 NATO rifle doesn't take 3 shots to put down a target.
In the game they need to adjust it to have roughly the same power as the M14 and obviously adjust the recoil to an extent where it is useless in full auto. Simple as that.

BlackwaterEddie wrote:Very true Viking, some people can control it better (bringing the mouse down after each round expended) while others curse every time their reticule goes crazy.

Hehehehe....I love doing that. Accuracy might go to hell, but it's pretty damn effective in QCB.

BROWNING9MMSURPRISE wrote:Recoil is not a matter of opinion and I believe I said more than once it is not just a matter of recoil. A 7.62 NATO rifle doesn't take 3 shots to put down a target.

I take it you have tried? A 7.62 might pass straight through the guy, and he'll keep fighting. Also, note that that's three shots to an armoured target.

BROWNING9MMSURPRISE wrote:In the game they need to adjust it to have roughly the same power as the M14 and obviously adjust the recoil to an extent where it is useless in full auto. Simple as that.

I'm not sure what round the M14 uses. Is it the regular 7.62 or the upped version used in sniper rifles?

Dude you have no clue about rifle calibers. Go check out wikipedia or something and stop ruining the thread. You are generalizing 7.62. There are 2 widespread kinds. 7.62x39mm Soviet (much smaller) and 7.62x51mm NATO (the round the G3 fires). You mentioned the famous 5.56 vs 7.62 debate. This debate is about the 7.62 Soviet, a much smaller and less powerful round than the 7.62 NATO.
There is no such thing as an "updated sniper version" of any 7.62. The M14 is a famous 7.62 NATO rifle as is the HK G3. The M14 is simply a battle rifle, not a sniper rifle although it can fill that role when equipped with scope etc.
Anyone who knows these rifles and their rounds knows what I'm talking about.

You guys are being too nice here, I'll put it bluntly since nobody seems willing to. Browning, simply put, calm down and be polite or get the hell out of these forums. Everyone here has been nothing but nice to you so there is no reason for posting with an attitude so drop it. You want to be an *******, do it somewhere else because nobody cares to read it.

To the topic, has anyone here ever actually fired a G3? Perhaps we should focus on making the gun true to life whether that's adding, reducing, or keeping the recoil the same based on how the gun actually acts. I'd prefer this than just getting what "feels" right in comparison to an M16. After all, the cartridge size is not the only factor in recoil; weapon size, weight, layout, and how the internals work all play a huge factor in how a weapon handles.

BROWNING9MMSURPRISE wrote:Dude you have no clue about rifle calibers. Go check out wikipedia or something and stop ruining the thread. You are generalizing 7.62. There are 2 widespread kinds. 7.62x39mm Soviet (much smaller) and 7.62x51mm NATO (the round the G3 fires). There is no such thing as an "updated sniper version". The M14 is a famous 7.62 NATO rifle as is the HK G3.
Anyone who knows these rifles and their rounds knows what I'm talking about.

I don't think you noticed that I have specified NATO rounds all the way here?

And, yes, in a sniper rifle, you'd use a more high-powered round, still in 7.62, but with a more powerful load. There is a difference between the 7.62 round used in an M24 rifle and the 7.62 in a G3. You'd probably use boat-tailed rounds in the sniper rifle as well, to increase accuracy.

lonelyjew wrote:You guys are being too nice here, I'll put it bluntly since nobody seems willing to. Browning, simply put, calm down and be polite or get the hell out of these forums. Everyone here has been nothing but nice to you so there is no reason for posting with an attitude so drop it. You want to be an *******, do it somewhere else because nobody cares to read it.

To the topic, has anyone here ever actually fired a G3? Perhaps we should focus on making the gun true to life whether that's adding, reducing, or keeping the recoil the same based on how the gun actually acts. I'd prefer this than just getting what "feels" right in comparison to an M16. After all, the cartridge size is not the only factor in recoil; weapon size, weight, layout, and how the internals work all play a huge factor in how a weapon handles.

Exactly. Also affected by the firer's stance, size, grip, etc.

BROWNING9MMSURPRISE wrote:Recoil is not a matter of opinion and I believe I said more than once that the problem with the G3 in the game is not merely a matter of recoil. A 7.62 NATO rifle doesn't take 3 shots to put down a target.
In the game they need to adjust it to have roughly the same power as the M14 and obviously adjust the recoil to an extent where it is useless in full auto. Simple as that.

In game, it is. Some people can handle the recoil well, some cant, so they notice it to different degrees.

Like KP, I would ask you when was the last time you fired a 7.62x51mm (.308 Winchester) Semi automatic rifle (or any such firearm) and when was the last time you shot anyone with such a weapon. I'd wager never on the second one at least. (I've never fired one personally, so I can only comment on second hand reports)

You can never make a weapon in a computer game useless through recoil (the only exeption I cant think of being the deployable MGs in DoD) as people will always learn to compensate no matter how bad unless it litterlaly leaves them pointing skyward after 1 or 2 rounds. Which would be unrealistic.

3 Shots to put an armoured target down (to the chest) (They'll bleed out about 5 seconds after the second round, and unarmoured targets go down in 2, again, around 5 seconds of bleed out after the first round before they die). Lets assume the First round smashes the ceramic plate in the vest, making that useless, the second round puts the guy in a seriously bad way (as in about to die and cant see toss) and the third finishes him. Seems like a fair balance between realism and gameplay to me.

I agree, the recoil could indeed to with a bit of a boost, but you'll never make it useless without the crazy sideways bullets of BF2.

Double post. Bullhooks.

With the G3 I find it's easy enough to drop an armoured guy in 2 shots.

DirtyHarry88 wrote:With the G3 I find it's easy enough to drop an armoured guy in 2 shots.

same for me

KP wrote:I take it you have tried? A 7.62 might pass straight through the guy, and he'll keep fighting.

I doubt someone would keep fighting if they were hit with a 7.62x51, even regardless of where they were hit.

lonelyjew wrote:To the topic, has anyone here ever actually fired a G3?

Those who have served in the norwegian military atleast.

according to my training in the german bundeswehr, the G3 recoil is big enough to bring it up in the sky in a three round burst.. a skilled shooter maybe can keep it down to an increase of angle of perhaps 30° .. stil way too much to shoot accurately. In addition the M16 is supposed a rifle with a very low recoil, but i think i will shoot one next week. Maybe i get to shoot the G3 too but i do think there will only be the G36 ^^

Anyway, our instructor told us, that the G3 has a acceptable stopping power, much more than a 5.56 weapon

SethLive! wrote:same for me

Thats because they bleed out really, really fast after the second round. And while they're bleeding, they can see exactly toss. 2 rounds will effectivly take them out of the battle, and without medical aid they'll die a few seconds after the second hit. Well, in my experience anyway.

i dont think the recoil is that bad , if anything its to much ... it lifts up the barrel alot but because of the guns straight profile i thought most recoil goes back into the shooters arm ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBDVmJN35T8

thats what i think.


also 5.56 vs 7.62 is debatable because 7.62 can go straight through a target and not do as much damage as a 5.56 that tumbles and squashes into a biger surface area on impact.

The fact that the AR-15 line in general has that recoil-absorption mechanism on axis with the barrel, while the G3 has none to speak of might have some repercussions.