Project Reality Forums

Only AK-47 has worse deviation ingame( i think). Everything else is the same.

How have we got to a point where PR's rifle zeroing was questioned, to the point where we are disputing the indisputable physics of weapons ballistics?

'Sirex[SWE wrote:[MoW];1325882']That is what i was saing, the Taqvor is more ergonomic and thus better for the serviceman to fire good with.

Lets not forget that the AR-15 series is the main service rifle of the US armed forces, arguably the worlds most modern fighting force. It has undergone many changes, some external, some internal. While the A1 notably had its teething problems, there have been many improvements. The level of ergonomic development and customisation is quite flexible and variable.

Many argue the AK-47 is one of the world's best assault rifles, because of its sparse, simple design that could be seen as 'arcane' by many of the newer polly-carbon rifles. Because the AN-94 is clearly based off of the AK-47 series, despite its revolutionary "blowback shifted pulse" system, we should call it 'old as shit'?
I guess the M2 Browning is worthless then!


...mongol...

'Sirex[SWE wrote:[MoW];1325820']Esxcuse me, have you even read the thread?





Yes as a matter of fact it has 21 century technology to make it more accurate, it is state of the art since it is the newest used national firearm in the world. If you don'y get that then it means you don't know what you are talking about. Have you used a combatrifle? Barrel length is really only relevant when talking about the bullets power at the moment of impact. What matters is ergonomics and aim design where Tavor is far superior.

Tavor T.A.R. 21 – Weapon of the Future | Famous Guns
"With its integral optical sight, it can be aimed and fire accurately with both eyes opened, maintaining constant eye contact with the target, improving the soldier’s peripheral vision and maintaining effective situational awareness. The compact weapon fits comfortably, aimed instinctively and fired instantly and effectively even by a heavily loaded warfighter, in tight enclosures, where the use of longer weapons is impractical. "

http://www.israel-weapon.com/?catid={BE ... E1E40D0422}

The most important aspect is that because it is more ergonomic and desgined for giving fire always the weapon is simply better for an exhausted and weiged down soldier then an old m16.

You said "worst accuracy" not "worst range", and because a weapon is new it is automatically better? yes i have limited range experience with assault rifles (SA80, LSW) .

As far as i know, length of barrel is directly linked to accuracy. Also the fact that the TAR is a bull-pup making it more "ergonomic" is down to personal preference. And Why are you basing accuracy on age of a weapon?

edit: also see what mongol said above.

[quote=""'[R-MOD"]Mongolian_dude;1326003']How have we got to a point where PR's rifle zeroing was questioned, to the point where we are disputing the indisputable physics of weapons ballistics?



Lets not forget that the AR-15 series is the main service rifle of the US armed forces, arguably the worlds most modern fighting force. It has undergone many changes, some external, some internal. While the A1 notably had its teething problems, there have been many improvements. The level of ergonomic development and customisation is quite flexible and variable.

Many argue the AK-47 is one of the world's best assault rifles, because of its sparse, simple design that could be seen as 'arcane' by many of the newer polly-carbon rifles. Because the AN-94 is clearly based off of the AK-47 series, despite its revolutionary "blowback shifted pulse" system, we should call it 'old as shit'?
I guess the M2 Browning is worthless then!


...mongol...[/quote]
I can't find a single arguemnt except that "US uses it therby it must be good" from your whole text. We were discussing Tavor vs m16?


[quote="gazzthompson""]You said "worst accuracy" not "worst range", and because a weapon is new it is automatically better? yes i have limited range experience with assault rifles (SA80, LSW) .
[/quote]
Don't try to shift your reading problems to that it is my fault. I was clearly against that Tavor had the 150meters bulletdrop and not 300 as other assault rifles in the game. This is clear because on the a page before one developers posted this. So again this is a problem with you that you don't read through the thread before you post.

gazzthompson wrote: As far as i know, length of barrel is directly linked to accuracy. Also the fact that the TAR is a bull-pup making it more "ergonomic" is down to personal preference. And Why are you basing accuracy on age of a weapon?

edit: also see what mongol said above.

Yes ofcourse it is related, but not so much as weapon handling and ergonomics is. And here Tavor is superior. As i said before, barrel length has much more impact on bullet penetration and power then accuracy. Accuracy is much more dependent on the round itself the the barrel, see the discussion between 5.56 and 7.62, since different rounds have different trajectory's which has a much more direct impact on aiming then barrel length will ever ever never have.

No it is not because of the bullpup alone. It is because the whole weapon was designed for it, not just the bullpup design the the entire exterior. Look at the weapon for christ sake, it screams ergonomics. Ergonomics are not just personal preference, it is science, people have two arms and two hadns with five fingers. Saing that ergonmics is not something that can be developed you just disregard all the scien and ingeners that have worked with ergonomics since it become widely considered, like after the fifties.

Also i don't get the arguments about that i base that Tavor is a state of the art weapon and has superior accuracy and ergonomics then weapons which foundations is from the fifties. Tavor is acknowledge as being the most modern assault rifle in existence that is used on a national scale, why do you contradict this? Tavor is designed to work with soldiers who are heavy loaded and have LAT and body armor, m16 is not.

Ok, can't be bothered quoting all that but I want to join in.
First, no my friend, the topic is called 'What are rifles zeroes in at?' and not 'Tavor vs M16', and to be fair you're the one who started the Tavor:M16 in the last page, and other people have mentioned other guns.

Second, just because a person may or may not have made a single mistake in reading something does not mean that they have 'reading problems', saying statements such as this will cause people to stop respecting you, and thus your opinion. So like, please don't, if you keep credible this could be a decent debate.

Third, ok, egonomics is infact a matter of personal preference. Everyone is a different size, with different length arms and different size hand etc. You're generalising all people, a gun may be comfortable to hold for one person, but not for another.
Anyway, a lack of knowledge about ballistics, barrel length and so on means I'll stay out of that bit.

Please source the last 2 sentences and explain 'Look at the weapon for christ sake, it screams ergonomics.' in the second to last paragraph for me... Because at the moment I could quite easily defeat this claim with 2 words in a credible counter-assertion: 'I disagree'.

Oh yeah, and before I forget to mention this, this is a game, unless you're so intune with it that you can physically feel that gun pressing into your shoulder, the ergonomics of it won't make the slightest difference, if they wanted they could make you hold a plank of wood with a nail sticking into your hand with the same effectiveness as any rifle. What matters in a game, are statistics, measurements and a few more numbers not how something feels. Well, minus the recoil, but that's hard to explain and could be done with numbers.

Now I'm tired, and need to be up in the morning. Otherwise I would have put some more effort into this and got a few sources, but instead I decided not to and tried to keep to arguements which won't have needed sources. Sorry for any mistakes and I hope you enjoyed my wall of text

'Sirex[SWE wrote:[MoW];1326154']I can't find a single arguemnt except that "US uses it therby it must be good" from your whole text. We were discussing Tavor vs m16?

The argument would be that the age of a weapons design has less bearing over its comparative effectiveness than you seem to emphasise. Infact, my argument is actually quite weak, considering the M16A1 1950s design is obsolete and surpassed by the M16A4 and M4 designs. It is quite possible that the Tavor is a superior weapons system in some or all aspects, maybe that superiority extends to accuracy and range, but to simply say "It newer, derfore it better" is lacklustre.
It was arguable that the Ak-47 was superior over the M16A1, due to the legendarily bad tendency for the M16 to jam.
Simply, I would say it is misinforming to say that a weapon is newer and therefore superior.


...mongol...

[quote=""'[R-MOD"]Mongolian_dude;1326238']The argument would be that the age of a weapons design has less bearing over its comparative effectiveness than you seem to emphasise. Infact, my argument is actually quite weak, considering the M16A1 1950s design is obsolete and surpassed by the M16A4 and M4 designs. It is quite possible that the Tavor is a superior weapons system in some or all aspects, maybe that superiority extends to accuracy and range, but to simply say "It newer, derfore it better" is lacklustre.
It was arguable that the Ak-47 was superior over the M16A1, due to the legendarily bad tendency for the M16 to jam.
Simply, I would say it is misinforming to say that a weapon is newer and therefore superior.


...mongol...[/quote]
Yes it would, but i asume posters on this forum knows Tavor is state of the art weaponry and would not argue so harsly against that fact. A similar comparison would be S.C.A.R vs Akm.

[quote="Dizakui""]Ok, can't be bothered quoting all that but I want to join in.
First, no my friend, the topic is called 'What are rifles zeroes in at?' and not 'Tavor vs M16', and to be fair you're the one who started the Tavor:M16 in the last page, and other people have mentioned other guns.

Second, just because a person may or may not have made a single mistake in reading something does not mean that they have 'reading problems', saying statements such as this will cause people to stop respecting you, and thus your opinion. So like, please don't, if you keep credible this could be a decent debate.
[/quote]
Well if he attacks me and tries to make me look bad because he misinterprets why would i take that kindly, especially whit that attitude and support? He was discussing Tavor vs M16 and so was his supporter with me.

Dizakui wrote: Third, ok, egonomics is infact a matter of personal preference. Everyone is a different size, with different length arms and different size hand etc. You're generalising all people, a gun may be comfortable to hold for one person, but not for another.
Anyway, a lack of knowledge about ballistics, barrel length and so on means I'll stay out of that bit.

Simply no, ergonmics is a science and materials. A smooth rubber hammers handle with small gaps for the fingers are more ergonomic then a wooden stick as a handle for the hammer, simple facts. Also personal opinion can always be measures, one single prefernce will always come up as the mayorits choice and logical the better one.

Dizakui wrote: Please source the last 2 sentences and explain 'Look at the weapon for christ sake, it screams ergonomics.' in the second to last paragraph for me... Because at the moment I could quite easily defeat this claim with 2 words in a credible counter-assertion: 'I disagree'.

Tavor T.A.R. 21 – Weapon of the Future | Famous Guns

"The name “T.A.R. 21” stands for “Tavor Assault Rifle 21st Century”."
Thus modern weapon.

"The compact weapon fits comfortably, aimed instinctively and fired instantly and effectively even by a heavily loaded warfighter, in tight enclosures, where the use of longer weapons is impractical."

"The T.A.R. 21 design is based on advanced ergonomics and composite materials in order to produce a more comfortable and reliable rifle. The T.A.R 21 is waterproof and lightweight. Accuracy and target acquisition are enhanced, by the use of accurate aiming, through the use of an integral reflex optical reflective sight, which projects the aiming point on the center of the sight. Tavor has an attachment for additional sighting devices, such as a 3rd generation night vision sight, which can be installed with no zeroing"

Dizakui wrote: Oh yeah, and before I forget to mention this, this is a game, unless you're so intune with it that you can physically feel that gun pressing into your shoulder, the ergonomics of it won't make the slightest difference, if they wanted they could make you hold a plank of wood with a nail sticking into your hand with the same effectiveness as any rifle. What matters in a game, are statistics, measurements and a few more numbers not how something feels. Well, minus the recoil, but that's hard to explain and could be done with numbers.

No. What matters is how the avreage soldier could use his weapon. And i disagree that the Tavor is clumped together with shortbarrel rifles which got bulletdrop from 150 meters, since Tavor is bullpup design and thus does not sacrifice barrel length as an m4 does.

Dizakui wrote: Now I'm tired, and need to be up in the morning. Otherwise I would have put some more effort into this and got a few sources, but instead I decided not to and tried to keep to arguements which won't have needed sources. Sorry for any mistakes and I hope you enjoyed my wall of text

I would haved liked soureces.

'Sirex[SWE wrote:[MoW];1326264']Yes it would, but i asume posters on this forum knows Tavor is state of the art weaponry and would not argue so harsly against that fact. A similar comparison would be S.C.A.R vs Akm.

Do you have some data that makes clear that the Tavor is in fact more accurate? If so I'm sure we'd all be interested. However, your argument that "it's the newest, therefore the greatest" is not connected to reality by even the thinnest thread.


Facts or walk plz

When the frack did this thread turn into a Tavor VS M16 thread?

I see no data or sources to support your claims, Sirex, just a marketing blurb which could be applied to EVERY SINGLE GUN designed in the last 5 years. You also quoted a few lines from that marketing material touting the advantages of Red Dot optics, which any modern firearm could mount, making it exactly the same.

in fact the very same page you posted had a link to

« SA80 – the Most Accurate Assault Rifle

nullifying your argument (which should not be about ergonomics)

IIRC Guns in PR are zero according to magnification of their scopes, ACOGs at 300m or what ever, red dots and irons at 150m and snipers and marksmen scopes at extended ranges

now you have two options:
1. Post some reliable and credable sources.... wait, this is hardly the tread for this discussion, so just go with option two and GTFO

[quote=""'[R-COM"]BloodBane611;1326292']Do you have some data that makes clear that the Tavor is in fact more accurate? If so I'm sure we'd all be interested. However, your argument that "it's the newest, therefore the greatest" is not connected to reality by even the thinnest thread.


Facts or walk plz[/quote]
Yes i have the facts i have already posted. Also the point here isn't to prove that Tavor is a better weapon, shich we KNOW it is. My point was that you guys have no source or claim to make it compearelable to the m4 in bullet drop. The burden of proof is on your part, not mine.

[quote="Th3Exiled""]Make up your mind! Are you talking about accuracy or bullet drop? You constantly go on about it having worse accuracy in-game, and how it should have better accuracy than an m16. However, when gazzthompson pointed out no one commented about the tar-21 having worse accuracy you shot him down on premises of bad reading. In fact the very basis of your argument, the qoute from motherdear, is indeed commenting on bullet drop and not accuracy.
[/quote]
I was always talking about bullet drop, if you can't understand that you have not read through the thread, it was very clearly that i cited a dev that said Tavor had bullet drop at 150 meter. Yes it is about bulletdrop, it has always been about bullet drop, goddamn people read the whole thread. A Dev had posted about that Travor had worse bulletdrop. It is you guys that changed the discsusion from Tavor ingame bulletdrop towards Tavor vs m16. Not me.

Th3Exiled wrote: Take extra note of the bold part. What that means is he could be wrong. Though I can't say with certainty, but from memory, all assault rifles use the same gravity coefficient (in-game), therefore they all drop the same distance over a same amount of time, hence at a certain range the only factor that changes the amount of drop between weapons is the velocity of the round (pr doesn't model drag). Since pr uses realistic muzzle velocities for each gun, it follows that the amount of drop over a certain distance is indeed different.
That is true in real life too. The only possible way for a weapon with a higher muzzle velocity to have more drop is if it's drag is also higher and thus it's velocity becomes lower at some point. However since pr doesn't model drag in its ballistics, the horizontal component velocity remains constant and hence is the same as muzzle velocity (at least when fired parallel to the ground).

Okay now you guys is being sincible. Why didn't you guys start to talk about how it works in game with the bulletdrop right away? That was my problem, instead all of you went hillbilly fanboys about the m16 and derailed the discusion. My proplem was with the bulletdrop.

"Why is Tavor counted as a worse accuracy weapon then m16 when Tavor is like state of the art vs m16 that is old as shit in comparison? A bullpup should not equal short barrel."
This is what i posted first, that is what was relevant, but everyone got a tear in their eyes when someone even applies that m16 isn't gods own assaultrifle handed down by god himself to USA. You guys have derailed this thread, i wanted to talk about bulletdrop.

Th3Exiled wrote: I'll point out now that just because something feels comfortable doesn't mean gravity won't affect it the same way, so all this talk about ergonomics is pointless.
Also, barrel length does play a role in this area (bullet drop), since the increased length of the barrel can increase the velocity of the round (as the expanding gas has a longer duration to act on the bullet), and as pointed out before, higher velocity means less drop.

No, better or diffrent ammuntion makes more difference then barrel length will ever do. I feel as i am repeating myself here. It is a bullpup design it doesn't loose nearly as much barrle length then for example m4 and shouldn't be grouped with it.

Th3Exiled wrote: In essence, gravity doesn't care how old the design of your gun is, all masses tend towards the center of gravity at the same rate. (provided they are the same distance from said center. Also, net acceleration would be different when considering the effects of air resistance.) The only factor is the time of flight.

Yes and?

Oh and one more thing that is clearly causing a problem here, a rifles zero does not equal accuracy , And is not related to barrel length, it is possible to zero a glock pistol to 100m and a SVD to 25m, comprende?

P.S. The TAR is cool, but dosnt kill people as well as a old as shit M1 garand. Coolness =/= leathality

Teek wrote:Oh and one more thing that is clearly causing a problem here, a rifles zero does not equal accuracy , And is not related to barrel length, it is possible to zero a glock pistol to 100m and a SVD to 25m, comprende?

I hope you are not talking to me, i got 11 month military traning i know this, but thanks that you pointed it out to the other posters!

In fact if you look at my first post i give detail about how this works with trajectorys. Maybe you "missed" that?

Bullet drop isn't the topic of the thread or the current argument, for the sake of everyone sanity please refrian from mentioning it for the 100th time. Any rifle could have the same effective bullet drop when fireing the same ammo if you zero it

Teek wrote:Bullet drop isn't the topic of the thread or the current argument, for the sake of everyone sanity please refrian from mentioning it for the 100th time

I know bullet drop is not the topic, but it is the center of dicusion now.

'Sirex[SWE wrote:[MoW];1326514']I know bullet drop is not the topic, but it is the center of dicusion now.

I should clarify, rifle zeroing and how bullet flight physics was th discussion until you came in and compained about the erogornomic supiriority and bullpup design was not properly modeled after a top of the head recollection (not a stated fact) from a contributing developer Conflicted with you view that anything new must be good

I dont really need to say much as everyone else already has, after all this offtopicness ive yet to see You (sirex) post one fact stating the TAR is more accurate than the m16 other than its new;

Teek sums it up for me pretty well:

Teek wrote: I see no data or sources to support your claims, Sirex, just a marketing blurb which could be applied to EVERY SINGLE GUN designed in the last 5 years. You also quoted a few lines from that marketing material touting the advantages of Red Dot optics, which any modern firearm could mount, making it exactly the same.

So i say again, why is the C.T.A.R more accurate than the m16a4? You made the claim, now back it up with some sources more than "its a new weapon".

gazzthompson wrote:I dont really need to say much as everyone else already has, after all this offtopicness ive yet to see You (sirex) post one fact stating the TAR is more accurate than the m16 other than its new;

Teek sums it up for me pretty well:



So i say again, why is the C.T.A.R more accurate than the m16a4? You made the claim, now back it up with some sources more than "its a new weapon".

'Sirex[SWE wrote:[MoW];1326514']I know bullet drop is not the topic, but it is the center of dicusion now.

who gives a shit,

'Sirex[SWE wrote:[MoW];1326514']I know bullet drop is not the topic, but it is the center of dicusion now.

sounds like a textbook case of off topic to me...

Forum rules wrote: Which Forum?
Make post in the forum/thread that is most appropriate for the topic being presented. Keep the focus: Questions outside the scope of a certain forum and/or topic will be moved, locked, or simply deleted. To ensure you post in the correct forum section, please make sure you review the entire Project Reality forums before posting.

'Sirex SWE MoW wrote: hillbilly fanboys

'Sirex SWE MoW wrote: reading problems

maybe steer away from these if you want to continue the "discussion"

Forum rules wrote: Flame wars
Direct or indirect ‘flaming’ of any forum member to incite or perpetuate a conflict or argument is strictly prohibited and will result in immediate action by a forum moderator. Any forum topic which a forum moderator deems as controversial or that may possibly lead to an argument/flame war will be closed or deleted. We will not baby-sit topics on these forums.

fades away back to Australia